[Thorsen]

Thorsen,

Tell me, what do you suggest they do? Hand out flowers while 100 patrons simply walk out the door with computers in their hands? I guess we just differ on this one and there is no middle ground. I have no problem with a store making certain that I've paid for THEIR goods before I leave with them.

Answering your questions in reverse. No. I would be happy to tell you about proven retail inventory methods that do not treat your customer base as a group of thieves. If you would like, I can post that in this thread, another thread or send you a PM if you are interested.

If you're sitting in your office this afternoon and a scraggly looking character whom you've never seen before walks in and silently picks up your computer and proceeds to leave with it, what would you do? Might you ask him who he is and why he's taking your computer? Or would you simply assume he's a stand up computer technician sent to help? I've got $100 bucks says you'd ask him who he was and maybe even ask who sent him and to provide ID. That's simply not violating his rights.......it's protecting yours.

Scraggly? Ramm is going to steal my computer?

Seriously speaking, I have no problem with a business detaining a shoplifter. I have dealt with a lot of shoplifters over the years, probably more than anyone else on this board and I detest them. When I was managing, I got tremendous enjoyment out of having the officer parade them from the back of the store to the front while they were wearing handcuffs and I never allowed their defense attorneys to keep me from representing my company at trial via delaying tactics. I even once told a defense attorney that had managed to get yet another last minute extension, causing me to waste yet another day at court that I great assistant managers and would keep showing up each and every time a court date was announced. His client ended up pleading out.

So, I really do dislike shoplifters and when one is caught I do my part to ensure they pay for their crime.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Good post (second one above this).

 

[Macktee]

I'm one of those people who do not show a receipt at the door.

I bought the item (or items), paid for it and was given a receipt. At that point, said item and receipt are now my property. I don't show them to anyone unless I feel like doing so. And I rarely feel that way...

I'm sure they have my picture posted at Fry's because I have explained this to them several times while walking out the door. I still shop there, they still take my money and I never show my receipt.

I'm often tempted to tell the security grandma it'll cost her five dollars to see my receipt... Like I said, it's mine. If they want to look at it they should do so before selling it to me.

I don't know the race of the crowd, alleged shoplifter or police officer, but I'm willing to bet the majority of the crowd were low income individuals, most of whom usually seem to have a noticeable antipathy toward police officers.

If someone wanted to make the effort, the racial make up of the area surrounding that Wal Mart can probably be found on the US Census website. If if is predominantly one race, rather than evenly mixed, than it's probably fair to infer the crowd reflected the neighborhood and was of the same race.

Whatever. I don't think race matters here. What matters is what MP pointed out. You're on your own out there. If a woman is yelling she's a cop and needs help but instead is attacked, what do you think would happen to any of us? Not a very pretty mental picture...

 

[budder]

Since I am the proverbial pain in the on most of these topics, I'll walk away now. But don't let that convince you that I agree....cause I don't. I think your arguments are thin and your logic is questionable.....yet I acknowledge your right to have them both. Just rest assured that if I owned a retail store and you came in and were leaving with my property and I wasn't sure you paid for it or saw you coming from an area away from the registers or with an unwrapped or bagged piece of merchandise, I'd ask for your receipt.

Likewise, if any of you own a retail store, I'll smile as I'm leaving it with your property and wait to see what you do. 8) :lol:

If our arguments are thin, then explain why.

 

[budder]

Whatever. I don't think race matters here. What matters is what MP pointed out. You're on your own out there. If a woman is yelling she's a cop and needs help but instead is attacked, what do you think would happen to any of us? Not a very pretty mental picture...

And what if she's not a cop? If I didn't see how things happened, for all I know the shoplifter could be yelling cop while fighting with an LP person. It's not hard to get something that looks like a badge.

 

[Bulldawg182]

Ok, just one more! :lol:

According to the Georgia Shoplifter's Act, Georgia shopkeepers must show "that the person had so conducted himself or behaved in such a manner as to cause a man of reasonable prudence to believe that the person was committing the crime of shoplifting" in order to be protected from liability for the detention or arrest of a customer.

This entire post was a very good post as MP said. However, it has to do with "detaining or arresting" a customer. None of my comments in this thread were aimed at that occurrence. The officer in the original post had the right to do what she did but I would never suggest that an employee "detain" or hold a customer against their will....shoplifting or not. That, in my opinion, would subject that employee to unnecessary risk and that's not their place.

Am I the only one here who sees a difference between asking to see a receipt and detaining or holding a customer? I must need an adjustment to my bifocals.

 

[VolGrad]

Whatever. I don't think race matters here. What matters is what MP pointed out. You're on your own out there. If a woman is yelling she's a cop and needs help but instead is attacked, what do you think would happen to any of us? Not a very pretty mental picture...

And what if she's not a cop? If I didn't see how things happened, for all I know the shoplifter could be yelling cop while fighting with an LP person. It's not hard to get something that looks like a badge.

True. Budder's scenario could occur, however, I would assist the person stating they were a LEO and then sort it out once the violence was quelled. If she is not a LEO then there is an additional charge to the original shoplifting.

 

[budder]

Bulldawg, I think we all agree that if consent is given, then there is nothing wrong with the search. However, if no consent is given and they still detain you for a search, that is illegal.

Volgrad, I'd probably do the same thing, though I'd try to make sure neither of them left, just in case I helped the wrong person.

 

[Thorsen]

Am I the only one here who sees a difference between asking to see a receipt and detaining or holding a customer? I must need an adjustment to my bifocals.

But detaining is what we have been talking about. From what you have been advocating, I (and I assume everyone else), has concluded that you believe that we should have to show our receipt to the door checker to prove that we own those items.

Some of us don't agree with doing that. Speaking for myself, I equate such actions with being considered a thief until proven otherwise.

Now if you don't think we should be able to be detained by store personnel as we walk through the exit and refuse to show our receipts, what are we arguing about?

You show yours and consent to do so because it doesn't bother you and feel it is right to do so. I respect your decision.

I do not because it does bother me to do so. If the staff does not try to detain me, we don't have a problem and I will probably shop there again.

The problem would arise if the staff ever tried to detain me.

They can refuse me service in the future, as that is their right to do so, but they have no rights to detain me or make me prove ownership of my personal items.

EDIT: Corrected some grammatical mistakes and misspellings in case my teacher wife ever reads this thread ... she makes enough fun of me when we play scrabble as it is

 

[Corbomite]

FYI, I asked a contact at the CC probate and was told the officer is Caucasian and the "suspected" lifter is AA.

 

[VolGrad]

Volgrad, I'd probably do the same thing, though I'd try to make sure neither of them left, just in case I helped the wrong person.

Good point. I would do this too.

 

[Bulldawg182]

Thorsen wrote:

But detaining is what we have been talking about

Damon, please read every word you've written in this thread up and until the last one which prompted my response about detaining. Then tell me how we've been discussing "detaining" and not checking your receipt. Until this last post, no one's spoken of detaining. Many have voiced their opinion that they were being treated like a thief by being asked to show their receipt and that their rights were being violated. I disagreed.

No clue from reading the article if the woman was a shoplifter or had actually paid for her item.

If she was a shoplifter she got really lucky. If she was a citizen who didn't feel like having her rights violated by a private corporation all I can say is Roll On The Floor Laughing

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.

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?

Bulldawg182 wrote:
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.

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.

 

[Macktee]

Yeah! :goodpost:

What he said!


:righton:

 

[tace]

FYI, I asked a contact at the CC probate and was told the officer is Caucasian and the "suspected" lifter is AA.

Thanks for clearing that, apparently folks here couldn't figure that out from the article.

 

[misawa]

Bulldawg, I think we all agree that if consent is given, then there is nothing wrong with the search. However, if no consent is given and they still detain you for a search, that is illegal.

:ditto:

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?

No - and I can guarandaggumtee you that if such a rule is ever posted anywhere I go, I will back away quickly and with much vigor. :lol:

We're really starting to split Macktee's hair at this point on this. I really think we agree, for the most part, Thor. You just take greater offense to showing your receipt than I do.

 

[Thorsen]

Well Larry this entire thread was brought into being because of a young man being physically detained by store personnel in the parking lot of a Circuit City. If I wasn't clear that I was operating off of that premise, my apologies.

 

[Thorsen]

You just take greater offense to showing your receipt than I do.

Yep. Look I understand someone not wanting to deal with any hassles that might arise out of treating receipt checking the way I do. I can also understand someone disagreeing with me on the way I perceive such a checkpoint. Maybe I'm just being a prickly asshat about the entire subject, but if so its my only shortcoming :lol:

 

[Bulldawg182]

Well Larry this entire thread was brought into being because of a young man being physically detained by store personnel in the parking lot of a Circuit City. If I wasn't clear that I was operating off of that premise, my apologies.

Sorry, I'll offer my apologies. I see nothing about a young man being physically detained in a parking lot at Circuit City. I see this thread starting from a young female officer in Walmart trying to stop another female shoplifter and getting into a fight. Did I miss something?

 

[Thorsen]

Well Larry this entire thread was brought into being because of a young man being physically detained by store personnel in the parking lot of a Circuit City. If I wasn't clear that I was operating off of that premise, my apologies.

Sorry, I'll offer my apologies. I see nothing about a young man being physically detained in a parking lot at Circuit City. I see this thread starting from a young female officer in Walmart trying to stop another female shoplifter and getting into a fight. Did I miss something?

Nope you didn't. I was talking about this thread and the kid from Ohio.

That's what I get for getting my threads crossed up.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

FYI, I asked a contact at the CC probate and was told the officer is Caucasian and the "suspected" lifter is AA.

Did they tell you this within 60 days?