[budder]

Why don't we just come out and say it? The crowd wasn't assisting the officer because they are RACIST. If races of the ppl involved were reversed, Rev. Jesse would be out there protesting today.

While I don't disagree on the second part of your post (x happens -> Rev. Jesse does something stupid claiming racism), there's no reason to believe that people stood by because they were racist.

 

[Bulldawg182]

Why don't we just come out and say it? The crowd wasn't assisting the officer because they are RACIST. If races of the ppl involved were reversed, Rev. Jesse would be out there protesting today.

Not preaching here....but I see no mention of the race of anyone other than the onlooker who pulled the cops hair. Maybe I missed it. If not, we don't know what race the cop or the shoplifter was and are making assumpitons.

 

[Thorsen]

Why don't we just come out and say it? The crowd wasn't assisting the officer because they are RACIST. If races of the ppl involved were reversed, Rev. Jesse would be out there protesting today.

I didn't see anything on the race of the shopper, the police officer or the racial makeup of the crowd. What article are you reading?

Sorry, I just don't see how asking for a receipt amounts to having her rights violated.

I guess we look at this from a different point of view. To me, when the door checker asks for my receipt they are asking me in essence if I am a thief and want me to prove that I am not one. I don't like that.

If a police officer were instead standing at the door asking for a receipt from you as you exited without any reasonable suspicion that you were stealing you would not have to comply as forcible compliance would be a violation of your 4th amendment rights. Why should I give a corporate employee authority over me that I would not give to a state employee?

Speaking as someone who worked in the retail industry for over twenty years, most of that time managing and a great portion of that time working for big-box retailers, I can assure you that there are ways to manage your inventory so that checking your guests at the door for stolen merchandise is unnecessary. Any store that does this has a poor method of inventory control and it is not right that the customer should be treated as a potential criminal upon exiting their building because of the business's poor inventory control model.

 

[tace]

I didn't see anything on the race of the shopper, the police officer or the racial makeup of the crowd. What article are you reading?

Really? I guess you weren't reading closely. The reporter didn't come out and say it, but supplied enough information to infer the races involved. Especially, if you have been to the Wal Mart in question.

 

[lsu_nonleg]

According to Bennett, they gathered around her and the other woman, where they were fighting on the floor, and she said she was a police officer and asked for help.

She didn’t get any help, though.

If she was New Orleans PD, she would have been the one carrying the TV.

 

[Bulldawg182]

Why don't we just come out and say it? The crowd wasn't assisting the officer because they are RACIST. If races of the ppl involved were reversed, Rev. Jesse would be out there protesting today.

I didn't see anything on the race of the shopper, the police officer or the racial makeup of the crowd. What article are you reading?

Sorry, I just don't see how asking for a receipt amounts to having her rights violated.

I guess we look at this from a different point of view. To me, when the door checker asks for my receipt they are asking me in essence if I am a thief and want me to prove that I am not one. I don't like that.

If a police officer were instead standing at the door asking for a receipt from you as you exited without any reasonable suspicion that you were stealing you would not have to comply as forcible compliance would be a violation of your 4th amendment rights. Why should I give a corporate employee authority over me that I would not give to a state employee?

Speaking as someone who worked in the retail industry for over twenty years, most of that time managing and a great portion of that time working for big-box retailers, I can assure you that there are ways to manage your inventory so that checking your guests at the door for stolen merchandise is unnecessary. Any store that does this has a poor method of inventory control and it is not right that the customer should be treated as a potential criminal upon exiting their building because of the business's poor inventory control model.

There's a might tall difference between having a private store/company use a process which you disagree with or which makes you feel improperly treated and having your rights violated.

Further, if I'm walking out the door with an electronic appliance in my hands not in a bag and not having come from the cash register.....I'd damned well expect to be stopped and asked for my receipt. You can bet your bottom dollar if I owned the business or was a stockholder, I'd want you stopped for the same thing too. JMHO

 

[Bulldawg182]

I didn't see anything on the race of the shopper, the police officer or the racial makeup of the crowd. What article are you reading?

Really? I guess you weren't reading closely. The reporter didn't come out and say it, but supplied enough information to infer the races involved. Especially, if you have been to the Wal Mart in question.

AHHH....the true essence of racism!!! :lol: :wink:

 

[Thorsen]

I didn't see anything on the race of the shopper, the police officer or the racial makeup of the crowd. What article are you reading?

Really? I guess you weren't reading closely. The reporter didn't come out and say it, but supplied enough information to infer the races involved. Especially, if you have been to the Wal Mart in question.

Well I'll ignore the snide tone of your response and say once again, after rereading the article, the only reference I see to race was the description of the brain surgeon who said that she didn't care if Bennett was a police officer. And I think claims of racism should be predicated on something greater than your "inference" of the participants race. For all you know the police officer, supposed shoplifter, walmart employees and crowd of onlookers were all of the same race.

 

[misawa]

On the rare occasions that I am in Wal-Mart (usually just to buy ammo), I hold my receipt out of the bag. 9 times out of 10, the door greeter shakes me off when making eye contact and gives me a "have a nice day" and never checks the receipt. It's really not that big of a deal and not a problem for me. :2cents:

No to thread-jack, but returning to this for a moment:

With an unarmed threatening crowd...

Would un-concealing your weapon (pulling jacket back, untucking t-shirt, etc) but not putting your hand on it be considered brandishing? As mentioned, the sight of the weapon if already OCing would most likely discourage a mob scene. I guess what I'm asking is would going from concealed to open carry get you in trouble?

 

[lsu_nonleg]

And if they all were of the same race, that wouldn't make a lick of difference, but they probably were. The "crowd" still impeded a po po (that would qualify as battery) to aid a criminal.

The employees may have just been pansy asses, but I don't expect kids from backgrounds where the public school is hugely in loco parentis.

I don't like fishing for a receipt when I checked out in the lane closest to the security grandma, and am pushing a full $200 cart worth of bagged stuff. So I keep my receipt out. If it didn't work as a loss prevention technique, stores wouldn't use it.

 

[Thorsen]

There's a might tall difference between having a private store/company use a process which you disagree with or which makes you feel improperly treated and having your rights violated.

I don't follow your logic on this. If a police officer, without reasonable suspicion, stops and searches me it is a violation of my rights. But if a private corporation, without reasonable suspicion, wants to force me to show proof of ownership, that is not a violation of my rights?

If the state and federal government can not treat me as guilty until proven innocent, then why should I allow a private entity to do the same to me?

Further, if I'm walking out the door with an electronic appliance in my hands not in a bag and not having come from the cash register.....I'd damned well expect to be stopped and asked for my receipt. You can bet your bottom dollar if I owned the business or was a stockholder, I'd want you stopped for the same thing too. JMHO

Like I said earlier, I have extensive experience managing in the retail industry for large national chains. There are methods that can ensure control of inventory, while at the same time giving the customer even greater levels of service and attention, without treating your guest as a potential thief. Walmart and other businesses that use door checkers are simply using a poor inventory control system, one that doesn't work anyway to control theft. I have been on the leading edge of helping to develop positive inventory control systems for large retailers and would be happy to PM you with the details of why door checkers do not work and what can be done to protect a company's inventory.

I appreciate your opinion, but on this subject I will simply have to disagree with you.

 

[budder]

Would un-concealing your weapon (pulling jacket back, untucking t-shirt, etc) but not putting your hand on it be considered brandishing? As mentioned, the sight of the weapon if already OCing would most likely discourage a mob scene. I guess what I'm asking is would going from concealed to open carry get you in trouble?

GA doesn't have a brandishing statute, but I'm pretty certain that would be considered aggravated assault. Not to mention any civil suits that might be filed against you for "emotional distress":bsflag: you caused a bystander.

If it didn't work as a loss prevention technique, stores wouldn't use it.

Just like gun control!

EDIT: Thorsen, if you do write up that PM, please send me a copy. I'm interested in reading your observations.

 

[Bulldawg182]

I appreciate your opinion, but on this subject I will simply have to disagree with you.

I appreciate yours too and your experience in retail. I'm not disagreeing that the practice itself might not work or might not be objectionable. I'm simply saying that it's my opinion that while it might be inconvenient, rude or ineffective, it's simply not the same as a law enforcement officer or government representative doing the same thing on the street and as such, is not a violation of my rights. JMHO....I'm no lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. :wink:

 

[misawa]

If a police officer, without reasonable suspicion, stops and searches me it is a violation of my rights. But if a private corporation, without reasonable suspicion, wants to force me to show proof of ownership, that is not a violation of my rights?

:ianal: I would believe this to be correct. Once you set foot on private property, you submit to the rules and regulations of that property.

 

[lsu_nonleg]

+1 Misawa. I choose to submit because I like cheap milk and toilet paper.

Let's be honest, with the exception of RFID (which is more for inventory and supplier control) Walmart isn't deploying high speed retention systems in old stores, the return just doesn't justify it. The cart theft prevention system at Chamblee is pretty neat though. Excluding stuff like razor blades and other items easily tagged to set off the "inventory control system," there isn't much as Walmart that creates a need for more than two inventory control grandmas at $8 an hour. The door checkers need only prevent $180 a day (give or take) in shrinkage to justify them working there. Hell, I bet employee shrinkage is a bigger cost item than customers that actually get away with it.

But I'm on their property, and I submit to their rules willingly. If I don't like it, I don't go back.

 

[tace]

You can call me racist if you want. I have enough close friends from all races and orientations to feel secure about myself to know that I am not. I had to get used to similar things in high school and college here where ppl think that if they ignore signs of racism then it doesn't exist. However, just because ppl would like to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[budder]

I'm no lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. :wink:

You can avoid all those hotel stays if you just buy your wife some jewelry every now and then

If a police officer, without reasonable suspicion, stops and searches me it is a violation of my rights. But if a private corporation, without reasonable suspicion, wants to force me to show proof of ownership, that is not a violation of my rights?

:ianal: I would believe this to be correct. Once you set foot on private property, you submit to the rules and regulations of that property.

Absolutely. All who step foot in my $foo store are required to immediately pay me $100 cash in shopping fees and all hot girls must immediately strip. It's in the rules, you know. Of course, the rules aren't written down anywhere and are subject to change without notice.

Hell, I bet employee shrinkage is a bigger cost item than customers that actually get away with it.

Every LP person I've talked with "knows" that the vast majority of loss comes as shrink.

tace, we don't have any facts. Just because there's a pile of crap on the floor doesn't mean that a 600 pound gorilla is in the room. Maybe Bulldawg just forgot to wear his Depends today. There will always be a racist, sexist, religious, etc element in any story, because people are not perfect. But assuming that the main reason why people were standing by was due to racism just doesn't make sense.

 

[lsu_nonleg]

I thought the racism came from the hair pulling and restraint of the cop. C'est la vie. You want to know racism, be one of two white guys in the Army ROTC battalion at Grambling.

 

[VolGrad]

None of us really do know. But, when it's time to draw the weapon.....you'll know and no one here can tell you and no rule or law will stop you.

DEEP. You really are a wise old man. LOL. Well said.

 

[Thorsen]

I would believe this to be correct. Once you set foot on private property, you submit to the rules and regulations of that property.

Not picking on you, but just using this statement to prove my point. If the private corporation had a posted rule, prominently displayed, that stated entry into their building constituted consent for full body cavity searches, do you think you must submit to such a search? I know that is a rediculous example and a bit of a strawman, but it follows the same logic.

Your rights are sovereign to you and inalienable. You can choose through consent to restrict your sovereign rights, but no one else can do so, with the exception of government under specific circumstances.

The most that can occur is that a business owner or corporation can refuse to serve you for failing to follow their rules and regulations and require you to leave their property. They can not force you to submit to their policies. By simply entering their property, even if their rules are posted in triplicate, you have not implied your submission to those rules and policies. You are free to ignore and even to violate those policies, just as they are free to ban you from their property for doing so.

I don't consent to being treated as a thief by corporations who employ people to check off my purchases and rifle through my shopping cart, and I have as yet to have one of those businesses ban me from their premises. I guess collecting my money is more important to them than going through the motions of ineffective inventory control.