digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

michaelrighi.com — "Today I was arrested by the Brooklyn, Ohio police department. It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -18/+339http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Security_Guard_Powertrip

    Is a recent/similar story from Tiger direct. Some might say these situations could be avoided with a simple flash of a receipt. But that isn't the root of the issue. The more I think about it, the more I support preserving the rights that these people are defending.
    • DeathBorn, on 10/10/2007, -91/+9Of course you don't have to show your reciept. That doesn't mean that they can't arrest you if you don't.
      • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28Actually it does. They have no right to ask you for a receipt, if they think you stole something, then they may call the police and report a crime. But they cannot force you to do anything. The police officer asking for id is sort of a gray area. If a crime was reported to the police department, or officer directly then he has the right to ask for your ID whether or not you actually did anything. If however the store only reported to the police that the man refused to show his receipt then the police officer had no right to ask the man for identification.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44actually your not correct well half correct. while the officer has the right to ask you for ID (so do I) neither of us has the right to COMPEL you to show ID. ID does not exist nationally in this country and any other ID is strictly voluntary.

          If your driving he can compel to display of a LICENSE to operate a motor vehicle but NOT compel showing of ID (semantic but important)

          When your not driving its NOT ID and it still can not be compelled from you in ANY state that I am aware of.
          • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Well said, sir. Dugg up for logic, something, it seems, is severely lacking here on dee-eye-double-gee-dot-cahm.
          • goodtimegirl, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7S/he may have a good point, but it is by no means "well said." In fact, any point s/he is making is lost in the atrocious grammar mistakes.
          • PARAPA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19No it isn't
            People jump on grammatical errors on here all too quickly.
            Get over it - people can be uneducated, dumb or whatever, but grammatical errors do not stop people from being able to make a valid point.
          • Wiggles2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Thanks Nerys. I'm ambivalent about the whole receipt issue, but I hope I'm not alone in thinking the larger issue in this situation is what happened with the cop on the sidewalk.

            Everyone should go to this link and print it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes Print it out and keep a copy of it with you or memorize it or something.

            To wit, if you are in a state that is not mentioned in that link (i.e. California, Virginia, et al) you DO NOT have to show "ID" OR EVEN PROVIDE YOUR NAME to a cop when being detained, EVEN IF YOU ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME. In most of the states that ARE mentioned in the link, you only have to identify yourself (i.e. name, address, birthdate). This is one of the great things about the U.S., but it isn't so great unless people actually are aware of it.

            If you're in a motor vehicle, however, none of what I just said applies.
          • goodtimegirl, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1No, Parapa, you're right. They don't invalidate the point people are making, but they detract from it. Would you walk into an interview and use the word "ain't" and the incorrect verb tense? I'd hope not because it makes you sound uneducated and distracts the person listening to you because the interviewer will be focused on grammar. There's a difference between a small error in grammar that no one but an English teacher would catch (and I'm saying this as an English teacher), and there are those glaring mistakes that simply make people sound/look like a lazy moron. Use punctuation. Use the correct form of the word. It really isn't that difficult and makes what you say much more effective.

            So, can you make a valid point with that sort of grammar mistakes? Absolutely, but are people distracted from your point, and does it make you seem uneducated? Absolutely. (But I should've known I'd be dugg down on DIgg for pointing out proper English. Heaven forbid we take the time to proofread what we write so that we don't look like morons who never learned to write properly.)
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If my interviewer is "focusing" on my grammar it better be fore a secretarial or typing job of some sort. Otherwise he needs a new line of profession. Second I could not find many grammatical errors in my post except missing ,'s a run on sentence and the word "of" where it was not required. Rather minor infractions.

            My Keyboard is pretty fubar'd (you might see a lot of missing a's I have to whack that key pretty hard) but I have yet to find another of the keyboard I prefer so I have not replaced it yet. I also suck at punctuation, lazy is probably why. While I am quite the speller I suck online because I can type very quickly but sloppy. My fingers get ahead of me such as an hte when the right finger gets to the key before my left finger does. Or I do not hit a key hard enough so that letter fails to register. Either way extremely minor in the face of the real issues. BUT I do not dispute it is an issue and is important. Something I need to work on.
          • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Too many damn English Teachers on Digg. This is an informal internet comment forum, not a final term paper or interview for a six figure job. Impecable grammer and spelling should not really be expected as most Americans don't "think" in gramatically correct terms. Get over it and quit bitching like your teaching a class.
        • jager719, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7your =/= you're
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4and yet you refused to use the reply link....
          • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Actually your != you're.
            Oh, and "you're" a tool.
          • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9=/= ≠ ≠
        • palustris, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4In reply to Nerys's comment to weeeezzll's (did I get all the e's ?)..

          It doesn't matter if ID exists nationally. He was a local cop - that means he enforces the laws of his county, municipality and yes the SOVEREIGN state he serves in. It doesn't amount to a pile of horse turds where you came from in the US, if the law states (thankfully it does NOT) that you must carry an ID in Ohio and present it to sworn officers upon demand, then you must.

          All powers given up to the federal government by the states (like bitches) are retained by the states.

          That being said, the officer should have called his station for advice on the law if he didn't know. He should have forced the Circuit City employees to report a crime or jog on.
          • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4According to a quote from ohio law, there is no such requirement in the state of ohio. Even if there were, such a law would be unconstitutional.
          • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just because a cop is charged with enforcing "...the laws of his county, municpality and yes the SOVEREIGN state he serves in...", doesn't mean the cop KNOWS the laws, or that the cop wouldn't try to exploit any perceived ignorance of said laws to his own advantage.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Also I could be wrong (only on the amendment numbers) but the 9th and 13th amendments make it clear the STATES must also adhere to the constitution. This means NO state or LOCAL law may violate the constitution. A mandatory ID is a violation of the 4th amendment. THEREFORE id can not be made MANDATORY (the exception is passports as the constitution accounts for this in its wording for when traveling OUTSIDE the USA) Since ID legally can not be made mandatory it can NOT be worded in law that you MUST present ID on demand since that would MAKE said ID mandatory which if you are keeping up (sorry I am bad at run ons) is illegal. As stated Local and State laws MUST adhere to the limitations of the constitution.

            ANY cop with half a brain SHOULD know this without having to be told this. THAT is why DRIVERS LICENSE is not an ID but a PERMIT to Operate a Motor Vehicle on public roadways.

            The Supreme court has already upheld that ADHERING to your rights can NEVER be construed as guilt. SO even if he was IMPEDING the officer (he was not in anyway) since it was his RIGHT not to produce ID it can NOT be construed as obstruction.

            AND your quote is incorrect. all powers NOT given to the federal government AND its retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE (not just the states) this prevents states from taking a right that is the people's
        • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8@palustris

          Did you fail Government?

          The powers given to the fed. govt. aren't retained by the states.
        • 80hd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If they have reasonable cause to suspect your a thief, they can perform a citizens arrest or just hassle you enough for police show to show up. However the burden of proof is on THEM and not YOU as a guest in their store. They can ask to see your ass. Like Nerys said though, requiring that you leave is their only right. If you are clearly a thief they can choose to detain you. But yeah.. they need some reasonable ass proof that your trying to leave with their stuff before they have the privilege to deny your exit.
    • iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/01/papers-please-arrest.html
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2So this chap was basically arrested for acting like an uppety high and mighty *****, who thought "he knew better".
        • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More or less. His point, however, is still valid.
      • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He was arrested for RIGHTLY defying a non binding order from an officer WHOME HE CALLED who was IGNORING the REASON he called in the first place. I do not know about you but many years ago I walked out of a walmart and had some ask for my receipt. I was so "confused" by this strange person asking me for my receipt and reaching for my bags that I blurted out "no you may not" jumped back from her and walked out backwards keeping an eye on her. I am a big fellow 6'4" 400 pounds rather imposing and this (what seemed to me) nutjob wanted to go through my bags ??? I was just a bit freaked. Thats actually how I came to discover this "issue" when I researched it online after getting home. I was surprised to see it spread and even MORE dumbfounded that day many years ago when the NEXT person behind me as I "watched" this nutjob (I noticed as I watched her that she had a walmart name badge) willingly submit to this rather invasive and illegal search (well it was legal for that person because they willingly submitted to it) I was beside myself. I am not an activist of any sort but I am educated to a decent level and know what is and is not "right" and "wrong" about this. It blows me away that people appear to either be totally unaware or just don't care.

        Scary
    • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -78/+19What rights are you talking about? There are no rights being violated here, so I'm not sure what rights they're preserving by acting like pricks and not showing their receipts, especially when they chose to shop somewhere where they know they'll be asked to show a receipt.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -47/+17I notice that I got dugg down already, yet there is still no explanation of which rights are being violated. It's a lot easier to hit the thumbs down button than it is to present a coherent argument, apparently. Then again...this is Digg.

        What really pisses me off about this situation is that I'm a Libertarian and I still don't understand people that act like this. I honestly don't know what right it is that they're supposedly trying to protect. If you're going to digg me down, at least explain to me the reasoning behind this behavior.
        • bonked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+55Once a purchase has been made, meaning the transaction has occurred, you have received cash for goods, the property purchased is no longer yours. You can't demand to see any of my property - and how am I to know this is going to happen until after the purchase since I won't be asked until afterwards.
          • consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -42/+9You're still on property owned by someone else...
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+46Exactly. A private citizen does not have the right to search anyone. EVER.
          • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34@consoneo: Which means that you have the right to kick me out. But that is the extent of your property right. Unless I have done something illegal, you cannot compel me to act in a certain way, or require that I be searched. You also may not detain me.
          • lookoutforchris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25@consoneo: And thank god the Constitution still works on private property. Interesting thing about the article is that he was trying to leave their property and he was prevented from doing so.
          • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30***** exactly Bonked. By the way, Neiby, it's a lot easier to digg you down, than for the millionth time, explain to some idiot his unalienable rights. Don't blame digg for your uneducation, you elitist. If you are really libertarian like you claim you are, you need to go read the Constitution. There are certain unalienable rights that we all have, being on private property does not remove that right.

            Can Circuit City attack you, JUST BECAUSE you are on private property? They obviously did not attack him, but it is a example, to show you that just because you are on private property, your rights aren't taken away.

            Next time, make complete sure you are ***** educated on what you are talking about, before you blame it on digg or the community.
          • digitmasher, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5I find it entertaining that you talk about a lack of education when you use a word like "uneducation"
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10but they did assault him. Twice once by standing in front of the car barring his exit and again by barring him from closing the door AND actively preventing him from closing the door. Personally I would not have called the police I would have pulled out my video camera set it on the roof aimed at me and the employee and then stated on tape you have 5 seconds to step asside or I am going to assume you intend to harm me and I will defend my self with force. See how fast he moves the tape is in case he does not move :-)
          • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3@ digitmasher

            I find it entertaining that you would try correct me, when you can't even use proper punctuation.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Nelby,
            Even on private property, you can't detain someone without their consent. All you can do is kick them out if they don't agree to your rules.

            lookoutforchris,
            Uh, no. The Constitution is a limit on what the government can do. Did CC violate his rights? Yes. Did they violate his constitutional rights? No.

            p0tent1al,
            CC can not attack him or hold him on the property without his consent. They can demand he leave the property. If he refuses, they might be able to forcibly throw him out; I'm not sure.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2tech42er - technically he was detained which is a constitutional violation. Also you CAN legally be detained by CC is they have witness testimony of you stealing something (or doing something that looks like stealing) such as watching you take it or watching you remove something and it is NOT back on the shelf when you move away or seeing you on video take something) they ARE in fact (maybe not in ll localities???) permitted to detain you and with force (reasonable force ie no clubbing you etc.. :-)

            I am not sure about the sensor things going off being enough to detain or even compel a search. Most of the "detain" laws have wording including the word witness IE seeing it happen and this is not met with a security tag. I guess it will depend on local laws (irrelevant here since the system did not beep)
        • lookoutforchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23According to the article he was detained by a store employee. That's where his rights were violated. They can ask for a receipt, they can tell you to leave the store and never come back if you're violating their policies, they can call the cops if you refuse to leave their property. What they can't do is illegally search you or detain you. In fact they open themselves up to a suit if they try to arrest/detain you. Police have a great deal of protection against wrongful arrest. Private enterprises do not. I hope this guys sues CC and makes a good example of them. The issue with the cop and the ID is totally separate from the discussion of store receipt checking.
        • unclefire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is silly plain and simple. Many stores these days have signs indicating they reserve the right to inspect packages. Many stores, Costco and Fry's electronics, have people at the doors doing a quick check of receipts. So what- they're just confirming you paid. Secondly, this guy ruined his stay by getting arrested. Choose your battles people. This is not worth fighting. The cop bit is a different story though-- the cop had no reason to ask for the license. And once they confirmed it was a valid purchase, could have just let him off. The judge, if he has a clue will simply throw this out. If he's a prick, he'll fine the guy under some stuipd charge.

          There are way more important things to take a stand on. At the end of the day this will not matter one bit in the grand scheme of things.
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@ unclefire

          If I wear T-shirt with "I reserve the right do to anything I want" printed on it does that mean I have that right? Store and their "reserved rights" signage are a paper tiger. You cannot fabricate rights by printing them on a sign and displaying them. If I ran a bussiness and have a prominent sign that reads "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" then proceed to systematically kick every black person out that comes in, you can bet your pretty ass that I'm violating their Constitutional rights and will be held accountable regardless of my sign.
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ unclefire

          If I wear T-shirt with "I reserve the right do to anything I want" printed on it does that mean I have that right? Store and their "reserved rights" signage are a paper tiger. You cannot fabricate rights by printing them on a sign and displaying them. If I ran a bussiness and have a prominent sign that reads "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" then proceed to systematically kick every black person out that comes in, you can bet your pretty ass that I'm violating their Constitutional rights and will be held accountable regardless of my sign.
        • dancingkatz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You might want to look up the ordinances governing the rights of "inviters" and "invitees" inthe Ohio Revised Code. THe owners of private property do have the right to take loss-prevention actions, including search of all parcels and bags while on the private property (which may include the parking lot and sidewalk in front of the store as well as the store building).
      • RealmDown, on 10/10/2007, -9/+43And their inability to control their inventory is NOT my problem. I refuse, REFUSE, to blindly accept their implication that I am guilty until I prove to them my innocence.

        "Papers, please." *snort of derision*. God damn nazis. ***** em.
        • ashchristopher, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4*sigh* Godwins law proven yet again.
        • Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Godwin's law was idiotic then, and it's idiotic now.

          It assumes Nazis will only happen once, so they should never be mentioned again.

          WTF? The Nazis were only 60 years ago. Such a thing isn't only possible to occur again, it's probable.
        • Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Godwin's law was idiotic then, and it's idiotic now.

          It assumes Nazis will only happen once, so they should never be mentioned again.

          WTF? The Nazis were only 60 years ago. Such a thing isn't only possible to occur again, it's probable.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10How many idiotic comments so far do you have to make? You think you would learn after your 15th comment being dugg down. Learn your ***** rights before you choose to excercise them on this site, IDIOT.
      • circle26, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The right to personal property, douchebag. How would you like it if someone came up to your wife and asked to inspect the contents of her purse? why is it acceptable for a circuit city guard to rummage through the items that you just purchased from them, and are now lawfully yours?
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -54/+18If you didn't steal from them then you won't feel any pressure to show your receipt.
      • Onyxblaze, on 10/10/2007, -6/+109If you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't have any problems with this tracking bracelet along with random drug tests and home searches for incriminating materials...
        • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -20/+6constant surveillance has nothing to do with compelled proof of purchase. I know I'll get dugg down for this but everyone who thinks they have some right to not show their receipt is insane! The store has every right to make sure they product is not still their product at the end of your stay in the building.
          • Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3Well, considering everyone on digg knows things, and tend to be as smart and mature as high schoolers (many of which are), you're bound to get dugg down. Especially without a response.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17I honestly don't know what to say. Yes, I dugg you down, because I can't possibly fathom how maintaining my right to privacy and my protection against unlawful searches is "insane." What I do think is "insane" however is the utter disconnect today between Americans and the basic ideas that created our country. Americans simply don't understand what freedom is or what their rights are, and insane is a good way to describe that. Insane how people would rather give up their basic rights to avoid confrontation, or just lay down under the threat of some kind of legal action, simply because they have no clue what their rights really are.
          • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"The store has every right to make sure they product is not still their product at the end of your stay in the building."

            The store is trying to prevent theft, SOMETHING ILLEGAL, by harassing something, which is ALSO ILLEGAL. Doing something ILLEGAL, to fight against something else which is ILLEGAL, is Hypocritical, and above all, against the law.
          • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I'm digging you down because you expect to be dugg down, I wont even take what you have to say into consideration. Next time, state your point, be a part of the discussion, and be content. Oh, and constant surveillance actually does have something to do with this, seeing how stores tend to employ video cameras, guards, clerks, receipt checkers, tags/RFID devices, etc. I'd say that's pretty constant. As for the receipt issue, yeah I show it at the door, but that doesn't mean they have any right to demand I do so. Next you'll be advocating they have the right to pat everyone down in case they tucked a pencil, a stick of RAM, or any other small object into a pocket; after all, you never know who's a thief and who isn't.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12but thats just in scbysnx THEY DO NOT have that right. its not there property ITS MINE. Are you telling me if you WALK 2 inches into a circuit city and they say up against the wall you are to be searched and they go through your jacket pockets you would be ok with this? either they can search you or they can not there is no inbetween. If they can not search you walking in they can not search you walking out. Period.

          I NEVER have to prove I purchased something to a store employee. UNDER NO CONDITIONS. AT MOST if they suspect me of theft they can call the police and if the POLICE AGREE THEY and ONLY THEY can compel me to prove I purchased it and he had better not SHOW this proof to the employee (unless its proof I stole something)

          What is wrong with you people? do you have ANY concept of what rights and freedoms are?
        • IpecacNeat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3@ Nerys, Why couldn't a store search bags as you leave? The technically have the right to search as you enter. I work at Fenway Park, and we search bags and pat people down as they enter the ballpark. Would you have a problem with that? I'm not sure you are saying that they don't have the legal right to search OR that it isn't CC policy to search, so they can't do it. If it is the later, then I apologize for my post.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2actually YES I would have a problem with that. I would object and refuse if they insisted I would leave. I am sorry and would hate to end up having bad day but NO enjoyment is worth having my rights violated. I am not a criminal and I will NOT tolerate being treated as such. Techniclly Fenway Park is skirted a constitutional issue. Technically as long as they do not COMPEL the search its not illegal. IE if you willingly submit. As long as I have the right to say NO its ok (but decidedly immoral NOT in the spirit of the constitution)

            IE they found a loop hole to violate your rights without "technically" doing so. Fenway park has absolutely NO right to search me. THEY DO technically (sadly) have the right to ASK me for permission to search and refuse me entry if I decline.

            So technically NO neither fenway or cc has the right to search me as I enter they have the right to ASK my permission to search. If its compulsory its illegal and unconstitutional.

            I dugg your comment up because while your wrong you DO raise a valid and important issue. To me Optional searches where a negative answer means refusal of entry IS effectively compulsory to me especially especially if it becomes rampant.
        • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1He just asked for the receipt and was being a jerk, since when did the Loss Prevention guy deserve that? Just so you know it was his job on the line if he had let the guy walk free. I swear people on here have no logic.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually all he did was politely say no thank you. How exactly is that being a jerk? I should willingly permit a violation of my rights "just because" he is going his job ?? your kidding right ?
          • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since when do all customers get to be treated like thieves by loss prevention, especially since they freely alked in and did bussiness with CC. Common sense should tell you that since CC along with Walmart and other big chainstores employ massive surevelance as well as undercover loss prevention to shadow and identify shoplifters as well as the magnetic and RFID tags, this measure of checking reciepts at the door is redundant and draconian. More people should refuse to show their reciepts. Once these companies realize that they are pissing their customers off by treating them like guilty parties then they will adjust their policies accordingly so that they don't negatively affect their profits.
          • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Since when do all customers get to be treated like thieves by loss prevention, especially since they freely alked in and did bussiness with CC. Common sense should tell you that since CC along with Walmart and other big chainstores employ massive surevelance as well as undercover loss prevention to shadow and identify shoplifters as well as the magnetic and RFID tags, this measure of checking reciepts at the door is redundant and draconian. More people should refuse to show their reciepts. Once these companies realize that they are pissing their customers off by treating them like guilty parties then they will adjust their policies accordingly so that they don't negatively affect their profits.
        • Yawgmoth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@IpecacNeat
          They DO NOT have the right to search my bag as I enter. They have the right to NOT LET ME IN, for WHATEVER reason they want. If they don't want to let me in because I won't consent to a search, then they have the right to do that, but they do not have the right to search me.
      • bonked, on 10/10/2007, -4/+66RIIIIGHT - all privacy should be based on the concept of "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't need privacy." Wow, what a brilliant idea.

        /sarcasm & disgust
        • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Yup. It's called "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" - when the electronic tag sensors go off at Home Depot because their cashier didn't de-magnetize my merchandise, I just keep walking. It's not my fault their employees don't know how to do their jobs. And typically, I'm in a hurry when I shop at Home Depot.
          • hove, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I work at a shop where the tag sensors frequently go off (often due to our incompetence sometimes due to faulty equipment) and from out point of view you should just walk away, there is nothing quite as annoying as someone walking out of the shop beeping then walking back two of three times to see if it's them until finally coming to the till to get their stuff de-tagged.

            I have worked at this shop two years and not once have we caught anyone shoplifting due to these alarms.
          • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I usually come back when the alarm goes off, because I don't want to get home just to find that I have a security tag still on my clothes that I cannot remove. Not because I care if the store thinks I stole something...
          • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I work at Radio Shack, where we don't use the magnetic strip tags. Consequenlty I come across a lot of these tags that are put into packaging by the manufacturer. I greatly enjoy taking these still active tags and sticking them to the bottom of Wal Mart shopping carts, so that when the carts go through the door the carts themselves set of the scanner. Big fun and a barrel of laughs.
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32"I have nothing to hide" -- the quintessential fallacy of the privacy-ignorant.
        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
      • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11That feeling isn't called "pressure." It's called "indignation."

      • IpecacNeat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4How about showing the receipts/bags because you are a nice person. When I was younger I worked in retail, and my boss was the biggest prick. The people at CC are just doing their job. Why be a jerk to a store employee, who isn't part of the government, or a member of law enforcement. They are not trying to trample your rights, they are trying to keep a job and get paid. You're just making their day harder. If it takes me 5 seconds to flash a receipt and make their crappy day at their crappy job a bit easier, then fine. This doesn't mean I will stand for basic rights to be trampled on by a law enforcement officer OR a member of the government.
        • NozE8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While I sympathize with the employee just trying to do his job, I dont think this is directed at him. It is directed more at the higher ups making these store policies. If people are used to "showing their papers" for stores everyday, they wont bat an eye when a law enforcement officer or government official asks for them.

          It has to start somewhere.
      • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2For those people digging me down I don't you understand how it works in retail. You see we have to protect our product from leaving the store...that is called Loss Prevention.

        Heck if you guys believe in that aspect, I may as well start wheeling out Big Screen TVs out the door...I mean what's the point of Loss Prevention right?
        • Yawgmoth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Wheeling a Big Screen out of the door would be probable cause for them to detain you.
          Walking out of a store with items that you now legally own is not.
      • gfnw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And you don't understand how the law works. Your store policy does not supercede a persons legal rights.

        Your store can do the following:

        1. Refuse a person entry to it's private property.

        2. Ask a person to leave it's private property.

        3. Refuse service to a person.

        For example, your store can ASK me to submit to a search as I enter. Should I refuse, then the store is within it's rights to deny me entry. Your store can ASK me to submit ID before making a purchase. Again, should I refuse, the store can refuse me service. The store cannot however, refuse to let me LEAVE.
    • mattacular, on 10/10/2007, -58/+12For real, the Digg crowd is so quick to jump on the "omg his rights got violated" boat and at that point it becomes blindingly obvious that the majority of them don't know ***** about the law. Especially in a situation like this, the guy was an ***** trying to stand up for...what exactly? Cause it sure ain't his rights.
      • Crispuk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40Ermm. Yeah it is his rights.
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33Wrong. He was standing up for his rights. Period. You're an ***** for calling him an *****, and for being a coward by letting anyone that comes along and carries some form of rent-a-cop-badge walk all over you.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18You are everything that is wrong with our country. DO PEOPLE FORGET why we celebrate independence day, OR FOR THAT FACT, WHY? You may want to go research exactly what the founding fathers of this country believed, and go read up on the Constitution, which governs this land.
      • iDragonFly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33He gave up comfort and convenience, and spent some time in jail in order to defend 'the peoples' rights.
        That makes him a real patriot in my book.

        If more people had this guys fortitude, this country might actually have a chance at recovery.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8DAMN RIGHT!! if anyone knows any lawyers or anyone who knows any lawyers lets try to find him a pro bono lawyer!
      • Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5What rights? There is nothing in the Constitution, subsequent Amendments, and any law in this country that states you have the right to NOT be asked to show your receipt. Of course, the employee isn't legally allowed to detain anyone if they refuse and anyone employee who does something like that would end up fired.

        It's people like this guy and the rest of you who think the world revolves around you and have to make the simplest, most painless things the biggest deal.

        This douche is a freaking hero for not showing his receipt?! Are you kidding me? Next you'll tell me you should get that rebate on that tv without having to provide proof of purchase, too.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13They can "Ask for a receipt" all they want. It's when they try to forcibly enforce that policy, or when the police try to enforce that, when it violates the Constitution. It really does boggle the mind all the people here in this comment section who really think they know their rights, but they CLEARLY DON'T.

          When they start patting people down at the door, I suspect you will be berating the same people who are against it? "It only takes a second for them to pat you down, your making something out of nothing". Get back to your regular controlled life, sheep.
        • LucianSolaris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Hey jackass, rights aren't 'granted' to you from some piece of paper, otherwise they wouldn't be called rights, they'd be called privileges.

          Rights fundamentally extend from property. Your body is your property, therefore we have (or had) habeus corpus. The items in your bag and the receipt itself are your property, and every right you have to do with them comes from the fact you own them (but you are not granted the right to violate someone else's rights, which extend from their own property).

          It is my property the moment the agreed transaction has successfully completed (pen off paper signature for VISA, teller's hand just gave you your change in your hand, etc). If I do not wish for store employees to rummige through my bag of property, I have every right NOT to show him. He has zero rights to compel me to perform an act with my property that I wish not to perform, even if I was on his property!

          Get your head outa your ass and g.... HOLY HELL WAIT NEVERMIND STICK IT BACK IN! GOD DAMN YOU ONE UGLY SOB!
      • uymai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i actually wonder why he and the tiger direct guy called 911...did they really believe their safety was in danger? don't people just call the police anymore?
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you know what the phone number for the police in the next town over is? Your own town? 911 is a hell of a lot easier to remember than xxx-xxx-xxxx for ten different counties and municipalities.
      • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This guy can sue the cop for false arrest and he can sue the CC manager for unlawful restraint (not letting him leave in his car). I hope he does.
      • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think the guy that got arrested put it best when he said:
        "I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused."
    • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Rather than flashing the receipt, I flash a slip of paper protesting the store's idiocy. Here's the pdf: http://alex.halavais.net/you-may-not-see-my-receipt/
      • infamousjre, on 10/10/2007, -10/+48i bet no one is embarrassed when they shop with you
      • Digitalfilm43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I like it. I will use it one the next time I get asked for my receipt, if I remember I have them in my wallet. I put the "I didn't steal anything - Thanks for asking" text on one side, and the letter to the GM on the other.
      • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7infamousjre: Nope. The people I shop with are generally as interested in maintaining their privacy as I am, and don't get embarrassed by such trivial things. They know I'm not someone to suffer foolishness gladly (fools I can abide).

        The ones who should be embarrassed are those who have paid money in a store and are cowed into waiting in line to leave. What shame should those walking through feel? That a security guard thinks less of them? Please!
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Haha, funny idea. It would be better, though, if the PDF looked like a receipt.
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Haha, funny idea. It would be better, though, if the PDF looked like a receipt.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Again, this is a case to take to the corporate level. This is like trying to get one cop in trouble, when the police department is teaching their officers to harrass people. The cop is following orders, and so is the store+employees. Stop this petty non-violent resistance crap and go after the source, the policy! Sheesh.
      • SilentScream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When both a corporation and a law enforcement organization have "policies" that specifically ignore the law, it seems to me that going to court is the only option they have left you. If they have already chosen to ignore the law then I doubt very much if a letter to management is going to have much of an effect.
      • kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4retail stores nearly always tell their employees that they are not allowed to follow someone out of the store for suspicion of shoplifting.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I suppose if a companies policy is to physically hurt people, the employee should be charged with no wrong-doing, RIIGHT?

        None of us are pawns, we think and act of our own free will. If you do something that is illegal and immoral, you are just as much as fault as the company that made the policy, PERIOD.
      • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It isn't a matter of "resistance" but rather a question of whether you are going to actively support their bad policy. You don't have to "do" anything in this case, besides walking through a door. Stopping, opening your bags, and showing your receipt are active contributions to bad policy.
      • ThugThrasher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Taking this suit to the corporate level would do no good. As a circuit city employee, I can tell you that our official policy is that you are NOT to chase a customer down or prevent them from leaving the parking lot. Once they have left the door, you are not supposed to follow them. This was a manager and an LP associate going against policy. The only thing associates are supposed to do is ask to see the bag/receipt, and if the customer refuses, let them go unless you can prove they were stealing. And if they leave the building, you stop following them and unless you have ABSOLUTE proof that they are stealing (i.e. video evidence) then it's over with.
        • acceleriter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Doesn't matter whether they were "following policy" or not, the employees were acting as agents of CC and thus CC is liable for their actions.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28I'm sorry to say this, because I know a lot of blind people here, will disagree with it... But we are getting closer and closer to a police state... It IS true, and to ignore it, is to further allow it to happen.
      • Archon810, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Even though I agree on the larger scheme of things, I have to disagree with you in this case. Ignorance was the true cause of what happened, not some police state conspiracy. Ignorance of the clerk and ignorance of the police officer. Digg me down if you wish.
      • dimension128, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1. wrong spot to post
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd call it more of a fascist state. We're already there. It's when government and cooperations work together to squeeze money out of everybody. The problem of course is the government in the first place. If more people opposed the government being present in the market at all, then he wouldn't have been arrested for "not showing his papers." And I know most people are going to point at the security guard and say "AHA! It's all his fault!" but look: he can be fired from his job. Do you really think the cop will get fired in this case? Do cops ever get fired in just about any case? They usually don't. Capitalism is always better than state-ism.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5BTW, sorry for double posting... But...

      Does anyone have some examples of the Legal Codes/text, which could be used in defense of our rights not to show Receipt?
      I would like to turn that into a piece of paper, stating my rights and legal backup, with which to hand to security guards and managers, who think violating my rights is a good idea.
      • zestyhedgehog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If they stop you, threaten them that you file a lawsuit for false imprisonment. Basically every state's codified false imprisonment statute is the same.
      • dimension128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you could google 'The United States Constitution'
    • CryptiniteDemon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Call or email the police dept

      City of Brooklyn
      Police Department
      Mark Tenaglia, Police Chief
      7619 Memphis Avenue
      Brooklyn, Ohio 44144
      (216) 749-1234
      mtenaglia@brooklynohio.gov

      Police Non-Emergency Calls (216) 749-1234
      http://www.brooklynohio.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=6&Itemid=47
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bureaucrats don't give a *****. Try complaining about customer support at the DMV.
    • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19For sake of clarity, stores have the right to stop and hold you only if they have a reasonable belief that you actually shoplifted something. (For example, if they actually witnessed you lift something off a shelf and put it in your pocket.) This is called the "shopkeeper's privilege."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper's_privilege

      If they physically detain you without such a belief, they can be sued for false arrest. They can *ask* you for a receipt, but they can't physically stop you if you say "no" or just walk away. (Like the goons in this article did by surrounding the car). Refusing to show a receipt does not create a reasonable suspicion that the person is actually a shoplifter.
      • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2well said
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Most people I know realize that this is how it works in theory, but store security is just about 100% backed by the police. Unless a security guard tackles a shoplifter and busts their head open or something, the police will usually arrest, prosecute, and and file reports based on lies. The police don't care, they know they can't be held accountable. The stores on the other hand, do care. They know that if word gets out that they allow adrenaline junkies to assault every customer they suspect might be a shoplifter, people will stop shopping there. There's financial incentive. I can tell you one thing, there are now a hell of a lot fewer Digg users who feel like shopping at Circuit City any time soon.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2I smell *****. Lots of it. I laugh at anyone stupid enough to believe this story and even more so at anyone dumb enough to donate.
      • ShadwDrgn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6dewd call the police department and look up the case yourself. it's legit.
    • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Whats the point of all these security checkpoints anyways? Do you really think the $6/hr 80 year old "security guards" who doesn't even speak english would know if you really were stealing or not? I went to the store the other day with a friend of mine. I bought one thing and he bought a shopping cart full of stuff. I showed the person at the door my receipt, and we walked out. My friend didn't even show his. You'd think the big "ITEMS SOLD: 1" line at the bottom of the receipt would tip them off...

      Im sure most of us have accidentally stolen something and these idiots don't realize it (you left something on the bottom part of the shopping cart, etc). I am convinced that as long as you show them a piece of paper that looks like one of their receipts, you could easily walk out of there with thousands of dollars of merchandise you just stole.

      I love the costco "reasoning" (to make sure you were not overcharged). I always ask the guy on the way out, so was I overcharged for anything? Do you really have every single price memorized? Doesn't it suck when prices change?
    • rawnnie, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Okay this is stupid. As long as you are in the store, I dont se ewhat wrong for the staff of the store to ask you for your receipt. Really, what's wrong? You are in the store, and they are making sure no one is stealing anything before leaving. If it's OUTSIDE the store, then that's another issue. But as long as you are IN their store, I see absolutely no problems in them having to check your receipt. They are checking for a proof of purchase of their items, why is that wrong? Just because you tell them that you paid, wy should they believe you unless you show them a receipt? Does your "yes" mean anything? No it doesn't. Just like the Cop said that he needs to see the driver's license, you don't have to beleive him, same goes for YOU. Just because YOU say yes doesn't mean the staff at the store's exit must believe you.

      What am I missing here? Please enlighten me.

      (PS. I'm talking solely about the showing of receipt issue here, this has nothing to do with the cop catching the guy for not showing the license. That is something I fully agree with myself)
      • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13"As long as you are in the store, I dont se ewhat wrong for the staff of the store to ask you for your receipt. "

        They can ASK for the receipt. You have the right to say no, and to not be held against your will because of it. You are not guilty until proven innocent.
        • rawnnie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1No, you do not have the right to say no if it's the store's policy. You must be obliged to show the contents. As said elsewhere here, if you do not like the store's policy, don't shop there. Simple enough I think.
          • quisph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Absolutely wrong. You have the right to refuse to show your receipt. They have the right to kick you out of the store. But they do NOT have the right to detain you, and they do NOT have the right to forcibly search your belongings.
          • Jester15, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No, you're a ***** moron. Shut the ***** up.
      • Wiggles2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hello rawnnie, I'm ambivalent about the receipt side of this story, but I'm sort of leaning the way you are leaning. However, with respect to having to present an ID to the cop (as a pedestrian), I'm violently against that.
    • irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6To put it plainly, Circuit city has no right to look through your bag, because you never agreed to give up your privacy. Once they ring you up for your bag of stuff and take your money, it's yours.
    • deltaandroid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I dont see whats wrong, as said numerous times already, they are ensuring that they are not stolen from. I do not think it is beig treated like a criminal, and even if it is inconvenient, it is the minority that is shoplifters ruining it for the rest. If you are e person that genuinely refuses to show receipt you look suspicious. When at places with scanners, do you also try to walk and squeeze around them?
    • jstohler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Apparently, we're spelling America with a K now.
    • armyabn1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2For all you DIGGers out there crying about this guys constitutional rights --- please go read up on the law -- the constitution only protects US Persons from illegal GOVERNMENT action - last time I checked, Circuit City wasn't a government institutuion. Stop claiming illegal search -- the 4th amendment doesn't apply.
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're absolutely right, they're on private property. I do, however find it dishonest that they don't make it clear that you'll be searched on your way out. At Costco and Sam's Club you likely consented to it when you signed up for their membership, but at Circuit City? It just reeks of non consent. In cases like this I feel it's best to speak out against the government involvement in private affairs, and let (whats remaining of the free market) take its course by Circuit City now losing a lot of business from people on Digg reading about this abuse.
      • gfnw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Protip: Your constitutional rights are not the only ones you have.
  • SRSco, on 10/10/2007, -189/+50I'd arrest this guy's ass too. All acting like a martyr.
    • 911cartoon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Ohh I bet you would.
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28pig
    • eternal464, on 10/17/2007, -44/+8i agree. it seems that being a rebel today is all anyone cares about. Why do people need to be so damn difficult. As far as I'm concerned, the Circuit City employee had every right to just go through the bag real quick, who would that hurt? It helps prevent theft, thereby keeping costs down for the rest of us law abiding citizens. Granted, the employee more than crossed the line with following him and preventing him from leaving. A simple writing down of the guys plate would have been sufficient. And the police thing, this guy is just dumb. What does it hurt to give a cop your drivers license to identify you with? By his logic, i could just run around making bogus claims about stores being stupid, or blowing every incident out of proportion and then giving a false name and have that be okay. This guy is the definition of stupidity, if you don't cooperate with people, they won't cooperate with you.
      • Ouzin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21See you in the United State of Police State.
      • lookoutforchris, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Actually it's very clear cut that CC has NO RIGHT to go through the bag. You'll notice they only ask to see your receipt at the door ... I've never been asked to show them what's in the bag. And I'll gladly pay more for an item if it comes from a vendor that doesn't violate their customers rights.

        Also, giving a false name to an officer is a crime. Providing false witness is also a crime. So running around lying to cops about fictitious encounters at local stores is totally a crime, and thus not "okay." So it's actually your logic, not the bloggers, that is flawed.

        What ever happened to civics class in this country? Maybe the whole population is just getting too stupid to even understand what their rights are and why they are a good thing.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17If a police officer told you to suck his dick, I bet you would be the first to "cooperate". I mean after all, it only takes 1 minute, right?
    • rabidmonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Fascist.
    • zovres, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10*****
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11You dumb *****, stop inbreeding.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13(My definition)
      Martyr (MAR-tur), n. one who sacrifices himself (or of himself) for the betterment of others, especially based on principle, moral, and/or ethical grounds.

      So, yeah, he's "all acting like a martyr" because if people like him didn't do this, we'd end up with more and more oppressive laws and such. Granted it would have been easier for him to just show the receipt and get on with it, like a good little sheep, but he takes a stand on this issue passionately - and it's good for us (you included) that he does. I sure don't have the balls or patience to do it, so I'm glad he's out there making a stand for us. What you're not understanding is that if people don't keep the Circuit Cities and Tiger Directs in check on our rights, then things will get worse because then they'll operate on mutual assumption that they are pseudo cops. The same is true for the real cops as well... if we don't let them know what our rights are, they have the advantage of exploiting any legal ignoraces we all share. This might not mean much to you now, but eventually it'll infringe on some right you have that you feel strongly about and in that situation you can look back and understand what this guy did was indeed martyrlike.
  • ikcor, on 10/10/2007, -90/+25Two issues here:
    1. Circuit City not letting him leave before searching the bag. CC is wrong, they don't have the right.
    2. Him not providing the cop with his ID. He may have a case, but it was stupid to not show it.
    • thebman990, on 10/10/2007, -2/+90He has an update on there with the Ohio law that specifically says he is not required and cannot be arrested for not showing ID.

      2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
      • inbred, on 10/10/2007, -4/+40Something tells me he still would have been arrested even if he quoted the law to the police officer.

        P.S. SkiFree rules!
        • mhuggins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I don't know what SkiFree has to do with this story or the previous comment, but I don't care. SkiFree does rule.
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9I thought there was a federal law that said an individual must comply with a reasonable request by a government official (a police officer) such as presenting ID.
        • alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Not sure about that, but if it's a federal law, it's a different jurisdiction, isn't it?
          • rnnbob, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7yah, state law is above federal law.
          • alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10There's a federal law that makes pot illegal, there's a state law in CA that makes the medicinal use of it legal.
            An FBI agent CAN arrest a marijuana user even if he has a valid CA medical card, but a CA police officer can't.
            And if arrested by an Federal agent, only a Federal court will be able to convict that person of any wrongdoing.

            Did you even bother to understand what I was trying to get to before being cynical?
        • thesparrowband, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4dont think. know. look it up. from what i can tell from googling there is no such thing, except there are special clauses when an homeland security officer asks you, such as on airlines. the patriot act cut alot of red tape for this type of thing according to the articles on whether or not you ahve to show your ID to fly.
          http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/11/supreme_court_a.html
        • alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Instead of just digging down my comment, can someone please confirm or correct my statement?
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That is what I liked to call a ***** law. What is the definition of "reasonable request"? Also, he wasn't driving, why should he have to present his ID? That officer violated his rights, PERIOD. There is no federal law, even if it existed, that can usurp the Constitution.
        • BrokenCircle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You only have to provide your personal identification in the form of state/federal/military identification if you have been charged or accused of a crime (i.e. shop lifting, creating a disturbance); typically if you don't provide such information that warrants probable cause and you can be arrested on suspicion of criminal mischief.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5There is no law compelling you to show ID and such a law would be impossible since there is no such thing as ID. If you mean compelling you to show a drivers license. Still no such law UNLESS your operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. You can not be compelled to produce what you are NOT required to have in the first place. EVEN THE TSA and Homeland Security can not MAKE you show ID but they can (so far) REFUSE to let you through if you do not.

          For example while a store can not force you to show ID to buy beer they CAN refuse to sell you the beer.

          ie you can CHOOSE a path that does not require the showing of ID. THIS officer broke the law by not permitting this IE he has no legal grounds to compel the display of ID and NO grounds for a drivers license since he was not operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. He falsely arrested and fabricated charges against him when he discovered oops I screwed up there really is no law mandating he show ID. Thats also illegal and criminal.
        • BrokenCircle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You are issued a Social Security Card / Birth Certificate which are forms of identification, if you are a male over 18 you are legally required to fill out a SSC which is also a form of federal identification. If you enter this country legally from another country then you are given a form of identification.

          Everyone has some form of identification.
    • ochants76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15guitar center searches everyones bags and stamps your receipt before you can leave.
      • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Costco checks everyone's receipt before leaving the door.
        • Maarek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Costco is a membership only store, which allows it to do such things (it's in the membership agreement). Guitar Center is not and has no right to require you to show your receipt (they can ask but you can just as easily say no).
          • quisph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Even Costco cannot detain you for refusing to show your receipt. The most they can do is cancel your membership.
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4I thought as much. Circuit City is absolutely wrong, no question.

      ...but when a police officer asks you for an ID, it's probably best to do so. Of course... I think your rights in this regard vary from state to state. IANAL.
      • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4it is probably best, but if you want to make a statement about your right to not show your id, complying with the request does nothing for your cause. You have to refuse the request and be wrongfully arrested for it to bring attention to the situation.
      • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7See that's the problem. Too many comply with unreasonable, unlawful bullying from police because it's easier. Do the right thing, not the easy thing. Stand up for your rights. Make the police uphold the law not break it.
        • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't believe it is unlawful. Technically the officer is investigating the situation, and you not complying a reasonable request is interfering with his "investigation". You cannot be contemptuous during any type of police investigation. I am pretty sure that most of the 50 states have a law regarding contempt.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Since when is someone even required to have an ID on them? Maybe I don't have a driver's license, and thus cannot show one. (I do of course, because I drive, but what IF I didn't?)

      There is no law, and it is against our constitutional freedoms, to require us to carry identifications. And unless some OTHER crime has been committed, A cop has no right or need, to ask you for your identification... -_-
      • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You are required to carry a drivers license while operating a motor vehicle. Of course the punishment for not doing so is a fine that may be dismissed if you later prove that you actually have a valid license. They can not arrest you for simply not having an ID. I was recently pulled over for speeding. I had left my wallet in my gym clothes. I was not arrested, nor was I even ticketed for not having my drivers license. I verbally gave him my first name, last name and address. He went back to his vehicle (and I assume verified the information) and returned with a citation for speeding and sent me on my way.

        Long story short...police may not arrest you for failing to produce identification.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, apparently they can. But then it's a wrongful arrest. They should not be able to.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Well, apparently they can. But then it's a wrongful arrest. They should not be able to.
    • Heiios, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You'd think if anyone should know the law it should be the cop.... :rolleyes:
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4@NikoKun
      It's simple. If you don't have an ID, simply state so. If a cop asks you for an ID and you have one, you have nothing to lose by showing it to him.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Nor should you have anything to lose by not showing it to them. It is not a crime to not have ID, therefore why should it be a crime not to produce ID even if you have it?
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Go check your penal codes. I'll bet you can find something about obeying an officer of the law in the performance of his duties.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually, any and all information an officer takes can and often will be used against you in some way, including your identification. If you doubt it, think again.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, if a cop's on duty, you have to do whatever he says?
          Hey, just extrapolating your logic.
      • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You have your freedom to lose. He has no need for that ID and you have no want for him to have it. ITs an unwarrented search and seizure (of information and a LOT of it)
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Rather than take your word for it... do you have some Supreme Court ruling that considers a request for identification as an unwarranted search and seizure?
        • Maarek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1fnagzna: Do you have one that says it isn't? Sorry but when it comes to rights, it is the responsibility of the one who is potentially violating them to prove their case, not the other way around.
      • xfTwitch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm sure there were many Jews in Germany in the 1930's that felt this way at first.
  • trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -76/+5Heh, all the cop had to do to see the license was all the guy to get in his car, once the guy sat in the drivers seat the cop could ask for the drivers license...
    You'd think cops would how to use the laws they enforce.
    • Fixhotep, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21he was riding in the back seat. It was not his car.

      RTFA
    • DrTall, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5If the cop lets him leave the scene, he needs probable cause to pull him over again. I know suspicion of driving without a license does not constitutes probable cause in Iowa. Does anyone know about Ohio?
    • alexforcefive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14His dad was driving
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6READ THE ***** ARTICLE, AND STUDY UP ON YOUR RIGHTS, *****
    • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I was recently pulled over for speeding. I had left my wallet in my gym clothes. I was not arrested, nor was I even ticketed for not having my drivers license. I verbally gave him my first name, last name and address. He went back to his vehicle (and I assume verified the information) and returned with a citation for speeding and sent me on my way.

      (from my comment above...this was in Wisconsin BTW)
      • meggygrl112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dang... there is like a $500 fee in california for not having your license with you...
  • eltrev, on 10/17/2007, -86/+37I'm conflicted here:

    1. I partially agree with the 2nd buried comment by SRSco that he acting like a martyr. Flip your recipt, and go home to your family. I hate Circuit City for my own reasons, but they have a right (to at least try) to enforce policies to prevent loss.

    2. If this if a case of "Picking Your Battles". Sure, hats off to this guy for taking one for the team - every little bit helps. But, as far as helping generate awareness or avoiding some police state, this falls into the category of Juvenile.

    His article began with "I was reuniting that day with one side of my family". It makes me wonder why the split happened in the first place - possibly because he is an unpleasant, high maintenance, bi-polar sort of fellow. That is my gut feeling. (prepares to get buried)
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -12/+33They can enforce their policies all they want, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. They could easily just have 2 people watching checkouts, and make sure anyone with a target bag is coming from those checkouts. It's their own fault for their ignorance and cheapness.

      Furthermore, yeah he could of flipped his receipt, but people like me and him actually care about our FREEDOMS. When you allow corporations and the police to even slightly infringe upon them, they will see that it's ok and take it that step further. I'm sure you wouldn't find it fine if the people at the doors patted you down if they found you suspicious, but that is the next step away, you need to think long term.

      Also, if every time. you choose to disagree with big corporations and government and police, then you are considered a juvenile (can anyone say nazi movement? Your either with us, or against us), then consider me, and a lot of people that live in this country "JUVENILE". My guess is if the police told you to jump off a bridge, you would consider it for a couple of seconds, in fear of being labeled as a JUVENILE.

      And that very last comment you made is a really low blow. I'm not going to even respond to that, you've have already done the work for yourself.....
      • justinx0r, on 10/10/2007, -34/+6Circuit City is private property. They have a right to check to see if you have a receipt.

        However, the police have no right to arrest you for not showing ID.
        • yutt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40Umm. Private property or not, this occurred in the United States. They don't have any right to search or detain you. At best they could ask you to leave the premises.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Right. Al they can do is kick you out, and POSSIBLY forcibly escort you off the premises. They can not keep you IN the premises. That's wrongful imprisonment.
          • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They can only detain you if they have strong evidence that you have shoplifted, such as an employee seeing you (then that employee would be liable for his claim if wrong) or if security captures you on video. Otherwise, they can piss off.
            By keeping the customer from leaving, the employees of the store involved are committing a crime. It's called False Imprisonment.
        • macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24Precisely - being private property doesn't give them the right to violate the law, numb nuts.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"They have a right to check to see if you have a receipt."

          Are you an idiot? Go find the law that supports that claim. You idiots spout out ***** like you ACTUALLY KNOW what you are talking about. The Constitution and our Founding Fathers would beg to disagree with you totally.
        • SilentScream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This shows how what the original author did achieved some good I believe - to correct people's perception about the law. I visit several photography forums and recently learned that if you take pictures in a private facility (like a mall, for example), the business cannot confiscate your pictures nor do you have to comply with demands to delete or destroy them. Their rights extend to escorting off the premises, refusing your admittance in the future, and possibly suing you if you choose to use those photos commercially in the future.
        • Neil990, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0@SilentScream unless you are in New York City... when it comes to america's ridiculous homeland security program, i am sure they can do more than just force you to comply with an order to delete or destroy the photos, at the rate that country is going.
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -24/+9Oh my god. You all are lame. Just because someone wants to see your receipt and check that you only took out what you paid for does NOT mean you are living in a police state. You all are silly people with an obvious case of "too-much-time-on-your-hands." Sam's Club does the same damn thing and I don't see people bitching about that.
        • Ouze, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Sams Club is a membership based company where membership is offered and continued membership predicated upon you agreeing to specific policies, such as the receipt check. Apples and oranges, sir.
        • yutt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17As Ouze said, per your contract with Sam's Club, if you refused to provide your receipt they could revoke your membership, but STILL WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO SEARCH OR DETAIN YOU.
        • Onyxblaze, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARREST YOU IF YOU DON'T.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No moron cops with ego's who then discover oops I was wrong and TRUMP UP new charges is what happens.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Just because someone wants to see your receipt and check.... does not mean you are living in a police state"

          Let me fix that for you

          "Just because a company wants to see your receipt, and forcibly blocks you from leaving, which is illegal, and EVEN THOUGH the police support that notion even though it's against the Constitution and Law, which governs all law and land, does not mean we live in a police state"
    • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8re "reuniting that day with one side of my family"
      ---
      He was going to a FAMILY REUNION jackass! What do you call it when your family all comes together to see each other? And no, "visiting day at the state pen" doesn't count.
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20"historically speaking, when Rosa Parks refused to move, you were the guys whispering "why doesn't she just shut up and go already?""
      • BlindingEdge, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3comparing the two situations as if they are the same is totally insane IMO. Comment buried.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10they are PERFECTLY analogous. only the severity was different. she took a greater risk but did the SAME THING stood up for what is right.

          Whats even worse is IIRC she was actually breaking the law (it was WRONG law but still law technically) in this case not only where they wrong and he right but they were BREAKING the law not him.

          I say its a pretty damned good example. the significance is different but not the validity,
          • Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Oh yes. Not giving up your seat because you're being racially discriminating against, versus having someone making a reasonable request to see your receipt, then throwing a temper tantrum. Yeah, that's the same.
          • Maarek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Mothrog: I would suggest you learn more about analogies. They are used to represent a similarity in relationship between otherwise unrelated pairs. The point is, that she stood up for something that was wrong as has this man. Another similarity is that as always there are the fearful saying "don't rock the boat you might upset my good deal" (usually this is said by those whose necks are also under the same boot).
          • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ Mothrog
            Nowhere does it state or imply that he lost his temper or threw a tantrum - way to distort, asswipe.
      • AtomicTank, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Err, no. This man was not being suppressed because of the color of his skin or some other social stigma. He was stopped because there was a slight possibility of him stealing something from the store. Seriously, there's no big brother scheme to be found in these situations. Bad implementation of store policy is the real problem here.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1wrong. It is the same situation. No matter how insignificant people like you may claim it is, it is 1 person, fighting for the right to do something they believe in, despite opposition, what Rosa Parks really did.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It became a "Big Brother" issue when the police officer chose to arrest the person and create charges that would loosely fit around the incident, despite the fact that the State Law specifies the individual is not obligated to show identification under those circumstances.
        • Maarek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You might also argue that Corporations being not persons (Corporate Personage is one of the largest lies ever told) have no rights except for those afforded corperate entities (and are thus not automatically afforded the rights of people) and thus the police should approach all these situations with that in mind. The individual is the one with rights to protect not the corporation.
      • bobfrancis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You are equating Rosa Parks to this guy? Umm, you are officially the Biggest ***** on Earth.
    • Tokkii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I really don't think his personality has anything to do with him being right. He is correct in every aspect. There are no laws that compel him to do any of these things. Whether or not he's a jackass is irrelevant.
  • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -11/+166Remember the last time your receipt was checked at a mom and pop store? I miss those days.
    • alpine75, on 10/10/2007, -27/+17I remember standing in line for ten minutes. Thus I no longer go there.
      • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16i always stand in line for ten minutes at a best buy or whatever but never a mom and pop store, because the mom and pop store is usually empty nowdays.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Not only do you stand in line for 10 minutes at Best Buy, but you do so in the presence of like 8 empty, unused registers and at least 4 Best Buy employees with nothing better to do than standing around staring at all the customers standing in line.
        • meggygrl112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0it's like they're having a smurf convention, huh? :-)
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Lots of Mom & Pops in high crime areas restrict the entry of people into the store or enforce policies of leaving packs or bags at the door.

      • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14that is reasonable though, they aren't searching you, just limiting you to numbers they can handle, if 50 people are in the store with 1 clerk somebody is going to steal something.
        • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Restricting access upon entry is different from detaining someone or not allowing them to leave. Asking you to leave your bag at the security counter upon entering a store is also different. Anyone who chooses to patronize stores that assume everyone is a criminal deserves to be treated like one everywhere they go...
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Not only that, but these small stores tend to be more up front about their policies. Like having a sign right on the front door, where you'll immediately see it and read it.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Restricting entry is kosher.Restricting exit is wrongful imprisonment, the legal equivalent of dairy and meat. I don't know why I'm using Jewish metaphors.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I hope other people understood your point as well as I did.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My friend, what's with the grocery list already? Oy!
    • karmak1ng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Remember when you could suggest the concept of a mom and pop store and not have people look at you all puzzled?
    • Frostberg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1a mom and pop store would know you paid for the items and wouldnt need to see a receipt.
  • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -79/+16Great. The Mohandas K. Gandhi of consumerism has arrived. Just show the freaking receipt. Of the myriad daily insults that the average American must endure, this is one of the smallest. Get over it.
    • maanwi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Have you ever heard the saying "Give them an inch, and they'll take a yard"? This guy was unlawfully detained and shouldn't have to suffer the store's receipt-nazi to exit, andI applaud the effort of his avoiding this insult; maybe this illegal policy will be reconsidered after CC gets sued by the guy.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Yes I have. It's called the slippery slope argument, and it's a logical fallacy. Next.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2How is it false? This is how freedoms are always stripped away, a little bit at a time.
          BTW: No one has the right to detain you b/c you may possibly have done s/t wrong.
          THAT is a logical fallacy.
        • Maarek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
          Actually the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. It is only a fallacy if there is no evidence provided to support the claim. Let's try this:

          1) In response to shoplifting many stores begin hiring employees to watch over inventory to catch those in the act. No rights are violated as this is a public space and thus observational privacy is not reasonably assumed.
          2) Shoplifting continues and stores begin to install security cameras throughout the entire store, up to and sometimes including changing areas. There is a questionable violation of rights due to the fact that some areas taped might be reasonably considered to be private.
          3) Stores begin to tag items with electronic devices that cause alarms at the doors to go off if the tag is not "deactivated". This raises questions due to the fact that these tags are often difficult to remove from the items (in some cases damaging the item like with VHS or other magnetic storage tapes) and there is the question of if these tags can be "tracked" later (in the case of RFID style tags).
          4) Stores begin employing people to stand at the door and request to see the receipt from the purchase that was completed previously. If this is not shown some stores ask the employee to detain the customer without any further proof of wrongdoing. This is an obvious violation of the person's rights.

          That to me does appear to be a case of a valid "slippery slope".
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8in a couple of years, we are going to be patted down when we leave the stores, and you ***** traitors to our country are going to be the first ones in line for it. What's the big deal right? It's just a pat down, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be concerned, right? I can see it now...

      and you wonder why the world hates us, it's for idiots like you, at least you know why Americans endure "A MYRIAD OF DAILY INSULTS"
    • grunk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This may be the saddest part of the whole story. When folks like gwhardyiv make comments like this, we're half the way to a total police state. He/she will be the first to turn you in to the "authorities".
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Do you really feel like your liberty is threatened when a rent-a-cop asks to see your receipt? Liberty does not exist apart from your perception of it. And if the liberty you perceive is so fragile as to be threatened by such a minor interaction, then it really isn't worth having, is it? Respond from a position of power, my young, weak minded friend. When you behave as though you are powerless, you set yourself up as a willing victim of injustice. And one last bit of advice...if you don't like showing your receipt, don't shop at national retail outlets. It's that simple.
        • grunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3"And if the liberty you perceive is so fragile as to be threatened by such a minor interaction, then it really isn't worth having, is it?"

          This just gets sadder and sadder.
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Pearls before swine.
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So you think anyone has the right to detain you if they have a 'hunch' that
          you may have done something wrong?
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No, I don't. I think that the kid is in the right, and I hope he wins his case. Having said that, this is a stupid fight to pick, and I think he should spend his time and energy fighting real injustices in the world, rather than the in-store policies of a national electronics retailer.
  • theblooms, on 10/17/2007, -16/+286I do this ***** all the time at Wal-Mart (or as often as I go there. I try like hard to avoid that place.) They ask to see my receipt and I say "No thank you" and keep walking. They always yell "Sir, SIR. SIR!" at me, but that's it. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal after handing over my money.

    • derekbalsam, on 10/10/2007, -15/+116You "try like hard to avoid" Walmart, and yet you still can't help going there? How hard can it be to NOT go to Walmart if you don't want to? Maybe the power of their convenience and low prices is simply overwhelming.
      • theblooms, on 10/10/2007, -3/+59"Maybe the power of their convenience and low prices is simply overwhelming."

        EXACTLY. I shop there about once or twice a month, and generally only when I need something temporary, fast and cheap, like say a $25 DVD player for a gift. Wal-Mart is only 3 miles from my house, and if I need something cheap and last-minute, there is it. Yes, I am corporate whore sell-out, but it is what it is. And, for full disclosure, I worked for Sam's Club (a subsidiary of Wal-Mart) for 7 years, so I know PERSONALLY what a horrid and ***** company that whole organization is.


      • Smills, on 10/10/2007, -2/+67"Oh my god... A hammer for only 99 cents, I can't go on, you go on without me!"
        • theblooms, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10I get your humor, but when it comes to tools, I only buy the best, because I make my living with them. I am a Chemist for one of the premier independent structure waterproofing testing labs in the world. We build *****, (usually roofs) to specifications, and then destroy them as violently as possible using a huge 6000 lb. steel 26'x13'x2' vacuum chamber. It's cool as hell to watch a 2x12 split in half length wise or to see 8" #21 fasteners rip right out of lightweight concrete as hurricane/tornado forces rip on it!
          • masterc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Are you done inflating your ePenis?
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think theblooms missed the joke.
          • Looc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5missed it for sure
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Very cool. But why is a waterproofing lab doing wind tests?
          • theblooms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Roofing. Roofs tend to blow off in hurricanes, and because of Andrew, Miami-Dade county Florida has the strictest building codes in the country for roofing. If your product can meet wind tests for them, you are good to go for the rest of the country.
      • drato, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm in college and don't have access to a car. To go to the nearest target is in total around a 4 hour trip, while wal-mart is just a few minutes away. The end result is that going to Wal-mart is overwhelmingly convenient, as much as I do hate them. The good news is that soon they'll open up a target much nearer to campus, so I won't be trapped for too much longer.
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You'll only be trapped by a different national retail outlet. And if it is that close to a college campus, they will start checking receipts.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26With the declining American economy, and Americans working more hours for less pay than 25 years ago, a LOT of people shop at Walmart because they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Most of the people who protest or boycott Walmart (and tell others to do the same) are reasonably well-off selfish prick assholes that have no clue how many people work 60 hours a week to be able to scrape by on Walmart goods. If you don't like Walmart and don't want to shop there, that's fine, but it really pisses me off when people try to trash Walmart and tell people not to shop there without realizing that a lot of Americans only do so because they have to.
        • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I agree. I don't like all of Walmart's policies, but I still shop there. And I would never expect other to stop just because I didn't agree. I can clearly remember being poor enough that I couldn't even afford to shop at Walmart. I also remember Walmart paying me $8.50 when ever other employer would only give me about $6.50 an hour. That extra $80 bucks a week seems so insignificant now, but it made a huge difference in the quality of life for myself, my wife and new born daughter at the time. It was an important stepping stone towards me finishing school and improving my families life. Could I have accomplished the same thing with out Walmart? Sure. But, that doesn't change the fact that Walmart was the catalyst in my situation.
        • dtiedke, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Perhaps if Walmart's business model wasn't the biggest contributor to "the declining American economy" I might agree.

          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

          Doing the right thing is almost never the "easy" thing. Don't say anyone "has to" go to Walmart. It isn't true.
        • Tokkii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well, I hate to tell you sometimes it is. It's super fantastical to try and boycott Walmart however, when you have a 2 income family of roughly 45k a year and three kids all under 10...then you can come back and tell me that the low prices at Walmart aren't awesome as hell.
          From the number of times I have seen or had this argument...the next thing that is usually brought up is that the 2 adults should have gone to college and then they would make enough money not to have to shop there.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Right, because:
            1. College absolutely guarantees you a high-paying job, and
            2. College is free, so therefore anyone can go.
        • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5did you ever stop to think WHY we work more hours for less pay than 25 years ago? Let me give you a hint its 2 words starts with W ends with T (and others like them)
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ummm.... GM? Is that what you were thinking of? NAFTA? NAFTA and companies like GM, who used it to move all their factories to Canada and Mexico?

            Walmart gives people decent paying jobs. People buy goods from overseas because they are cheap regardless of where you buy them from. At least Walmart isn't moving operations that sustain American jobs to Canada and Mexico, like GM.
          • dtiedke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Rarson, take a few minutes and check the link I provided. If you think Walmart isn't causing "operations" to move out of the country you are either ignorant or lying to yourself. Please look into it closer and you will see how the power base has shifted from the manufacturers to the retail. With the power shifting to companies like Walmart, they can dictate the price-points for the items they sell. Can't produce the item at that price? Move your business to India/China/etc if you want to sell to Walmart. Wake up.
          • Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good paying jobs ?? I LAUGHED when I inquired as to the pay rate at Walmart, McDONALDS pays better !! and NO insurance either !! even McDonalds has health care options that are decent if your full time !!!

            What happens when walmart puts such a large portion of our population out of work that we can no longer afford to even shop at walmart ? you realize that LIVING conditions are improving at such a rate in china that its already starting to get MORE expensive to make things in china that companies are moving in land to avoid this higher cost of living increase or to other poorer countries like Vietnam etc.. What happens when EVERYONE wants $6 an hour minimum wage and our population has already been screwed to where thats all ANYONE can get so we can no longer afford to even shop at walmart ? what then?

            Sure this is an unlikely outcome but something RESEMBLING it is inevitable at our current rate.