Occupy Wall Street Vs. Black Friday Consumers At WalMart [Mod Edited Title]

[dannno]

I live in the US where it's illegal to do that, so you'd have to explain how that can be beneficial.

Well I suppose you could, you know, get away with it maybe.

Or what if it were legal to kill somebody in another country, and if you did so it would benefit you? Would you have them killed then?

Is your decision of what is right and wrong are purely based on your own personal outcome?

 

[Justinjj1]

Holy shit at the neg reps this guy received.

Anybody boycotting WalMart deserves a +rep IMO, I don't care what the reason.

 

[Becker]

Doesn't work like that.

You might want to look into the concept of "false imprisonment". And they don't have to physically restrain you to commit the tort of false imprisonment.

You are correct, physical restraint is not necessary for the tort of FI. Nonetheless, it is not a crime, which is why it's a tort, and it's left for the jury to decide whether the shopkeeper acted reasonably.

Some jurisdictions recognize a "shopkeeper's privilege" which allows a shopkeeper to detain someone suspected of shoplifting. But even where the shopkeeper's privilege is recognized, there must be probable cause to believe that you are shoplifting. They cannot just stop every person who shops there.

You can stop any person you like, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which makes it illegal. And yes, you must have probable cause if you want to detain them, (it only makes sense practically anyway) however, you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes.

 

[Becker]

Well I suppose you could, you know, get away with it maybe.

Or what if it were legal to kill somebody in another country, and if you did so it would benefit you? Would you have them killed then?

You'd have to be more specific about the benefits. But I will grant you the possiblity that it may be legal. "get away with it" is not good enough.

Is your decision of what is right and wrong are purely based on your own personal outcome?

Yes, my decision is based purely on my personal outcome, I don't see how you can say there's anything else that compels me to do something. Isn't that Ayn Rand's standard as well?

 

[Becker]

Even though typical customers who refuse receipt checks might have the law on their side, it seems odd that a consumer electronics store was the place where Michael Righi chose to draw a line in the sand. Picking a fight with a retail security guard over a $20 receipt seems quixotic at best. Righi’s resistance stands out because, for most customers, the injury suffered from such a minor intrusion just isn’t significant enough to incur the cost of failing to comply with the guard’s request. But how should a customer who refuses to show their receipt expect to be treated by the law?

.

\

exactly. think practically, not principly.

 

[Rael]

You are correct, physical restraint is not necessary for the tort of FI. Nonetheless, it is not a crime, which is why it's a tort, and it's left for the jury to decide whether the shopkeeper acted reasonably.

Wrong. False imprisonment is also a common law misdemeanor. Model Penal Code section 212.3 addresses false imprisonment. It states that "a person commits a misdemeanor if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty."

You can stop any person you like, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which makes it illegal. And yes, you must have probable cause if you want to detain them, (it only makes sense practically anyway) however, you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes.

First of all, if "stopping" someone includes making someone reasonably believe they are being held against their will, you cannot "stop any person you like". And second, probable cause is a requisite element for a valid search and seizure or arrest.

 

[Anti Federalist]

\

exactly. think practically, not principly.

Pffft...that's what's got us into this freaking mess.

It's always easier to just comply, that's why it's called "incrementalism".

And every day, you comply a little more, and give up a little more, until there is nothing left.

 

[Becker]

Wrong. False imprisonment is also a common law misdemeanor. Model Penal Code section 212.3 addresses false imprisonment. It states that "a person commits a misdemeanor if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty."

keyword unlawfully. Which is to say, you committed a crime when you committed a crime.

First of all, if "stopping" someone includes making someone reasonably believe they are being held against their will, you cannot "stop any person you like". And second, probable cause is a requisite element for a valid search and seizure or arrest.

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.

 

[kylejack]

keyword unlawfully. Which is to say, you committed a crime when you committed a crime.

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.

A store can certainly ask to see my receipt. But if I just keep cruising, they can't stop me unless they saw me steal something. This is all just Security Theater anyway. It's not intended for the people making the purchases, it's for the people who might be thinking about stealing something (which is why the receipt checker rarely checks anything and just makes a mark on the receipt). I don't have time for that nonsense, so I keep walking. Securing their store is their business, not mine.

 

[Becker]

A store can certainly ask to see my receipt. But if I just keep cruising, they can't stop me unless they saw me steal something.

No, they can suspect you without seeing you steal.

This is all just Security Theater anyway. It's not intended for the people making the purchases, it's for the people who might be thinking about stealing something (which is why the receipt checker rarely checks anything and just makes a mark on the receipt). I don't have time for that nonsense, so I keep walking. Securing their store is their business, not mine.

now you admit they rare check, so what's your problem? you don't have time for this nonsense? Wait til somebody doesn't have time for yours, I know it's going to be fun. Yes, it's their business, you're certainly helping.

 

[Rael]

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.

I was was replying to your statement that "you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes. ", not referring to the shopkeeper.

 

[kylejack]

No, they can suspect you without seeing you steal.

More power to them to suspect what ever nonsense they wish, but I'm leaving and won't be detained.

now you admit they rare check, so what's your problem? you don't have time for this nonsense?

I've got places to be. During the busy holiday season the line for the receipt checker can be quite long, and his task is pointless anyway. So see ya, I'm leaving.

"SIR! SIR!"

 

[Becker]

More power to them to suspect what ever nonsense they wish, but I'm leaving and won't be detained.

Be nice about it.

I've got places to be. During the busy holiday season the line for the receipt checker can be quite long, and his task is pointless anyway. So see ya, I'm leaving.

"SIR! SIR!"

don't run into the wrong security people, and don't complain when somebody says "they got better things to do" and "your concerns are pointless". that's all I can say.

 

[Becker]

I was was replying to your statement that "you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes. ", not referring to the shopkeeper.

We were talking about the shopkeeper privilege to begin with, so what else would we be talking about when I said "you do not need a legal standard for probable cause" when I am not referring to law enforcement, citizens arrest?

 

[kylejack]

Be nice about it.

don't run into the wrong security people, and don't complain when somebody says "they got better things to do" and "your concerns are pointless". that's all I can say.

Look, the receipt and all the things in my bag are my things. I've already bought them. They're my property. It's an important principle that I don't have to show anyone my stuff. If they're that afraid that every single customer might steal, then they need to get more proactive with monitoring the cameras for people who are stealing things.

 

[Becker]

Look, the receipt and all the things in my bag are my things. I've already bought them. They're my property. It's an important principle that I don't have to show anyone my stuff. If they're that afraid that every single customer might steal, then they need to get more proactive with monitoring the cameras for people who are stealing things.

how about they put up a sign that says "if you are in a rush, leave, if you don't like being stopped, don't enter"?

 

[Rael]

Do you guys also avoid the greeter when going IN walmart? Sometimes I'm taking in a return and they want to count my things. I went in recently and had several items and the lady wanted to to scan my stuff but she was having problems with her scanner. Someone asked her a question and when she was distracted I just walked to the customer service desk and was done in like 2 minutes.

 

[Rael]

how about they put up a sign that says "if you are in a rush, leave, if you don't like being stopped, don't enter"?

It wouldn't have any legal effect. But it would piss off customers.

 

[DamianTV]

4 Red Rep Bubbles and 8 Posts!? I couldnt accomplish that if I actually tried!