That sounds like a Utopia to me if I ever heard of one. I value honesty and integrety and honor above all else, and that place sounds like it still has it.

-S

PS. Have we created are own problem though? I'll elaborate further in a bit.

just another citizen wanting to make waves. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes right, some times wrong.........Just like Taser Boy.....the guy is looking for a reaction..............I suppose most people would just comply to make life a little easier for themselves. My take, If I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about...........you want to look, go ahead. I have more important things to do with my time here on earth..........:hmm:

You can see why that could be a dangerous attitude to take right?

So by that logic, I must be doing illegal things because I refuse to let strangers into my house. Screw this Circuit City guy. I would've said:

"I'm driving away in 5 seconds, whether you're in or out of the door, and your buddy's infront of my hearse or not."

:p

[quote=Kapitan_Phillips]So by that logic, I must be doing illegal things because I refuse to let strangers into my house. Screw this Circuit City guy. I would've said:

"I'm driving away in 5 seconds, whether you're in or out of the door, and your buddy's infront of my hearse or not."

Well Kapitan Phillips.

Driving away in 5 seconds, whether they're in or out, and the guy in front would have constituted assault with a deadly weapon. To which case whether or not the detention was warranted or not, would have caused you arrest, bail, court, and large attorney fees. Which you would have won your case, but at what cost? Principal? That's a mighty high price to pay............

My logic is not to refuse entry into your house, that is your right, and so is not being searched without probable cause. This case is to trivial to demand so much. I do not believe as some say, if we don't stop here, they (the police) will abuse their authority......As with all things power can be abused.......however in this case its much too small in the context of life.....

Abuse of power does not happen suddenly. It happens when a culture of making unlawful
demands is allowed to propagate.

Letum,
So much in life has been said that we must stop authority from entering our lives. Remember the bumper sticker "Question Authority" We have all been told for so long that we need to curb anything that takes a way our liberty. And rightfully so. I believe that all men and women should live in liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However due to evil persons in our lives, we have to live by rules. Rules were not made for good people, they were made for evil people. If everyone was good, there would be no laws whatsoever. But we live with evil, which is forced on good people. And for some reason when rules or laws are applied good people are made to feel that something is taken away from them. That they shouldn't be subjected to those rules. Which I agree, they shouldn't. But in order to control evil some things have to be taken from good people. Such as Homeland Security after 9/11.
Now in no way do I say that this was a lawful detention or search of Circuit City Guy, but I don't see this as leading to future abuse. As Avon Lady said, If you don't like the rules, don't shop there...............

Warning to Letum: although you've resurrected, you will die again. :ping: :dead: :ping:
You're forcing the owner of that other private realm to give give his. No one is forcing you to enter another's private property.
Yes, I'm still trying to understand why, not what, thought even the "what" is difficult to google for to get clear legal facts and the rationale behind them.
Prove to me that it is illegal in the US to put up a sign on your private home's front door warning all people who enter that they are subject to search. If that should result in the inability for the mailman to deliver to such a residence, that will be the price such a citizen will pay for what should be his legitimate insistance. You and I might normally despise this but that question is why this person isn't within his rights.
Legal code proof, please.
Which Constitutional ammendment says that?
No. Dealing with the fact that theft and shoplifting causes billions of dollars of loses annually.
Again, I am asking for the legal code proof on why this is unconstitutional based on the 4th or any other ammendment.
Here's how it should work:[indent]1. Stores post a written policy noting that they must confirm that what they claim to have purchased is confirmed by a receipt. Incidentally, I don't know if store should need to post this or if this can already be considered a reasonable assumption, given that this has been so common for a long time.

2. Person makes purchase and receives a receipt.

3. Security guard checks that what is being carried out is paid for. Now here, I am not advocating that the guard has the right to inspect your belongings, other than purchased items in the open or store bagged. However, if that was that stated/accepted policy, i.e., that bags are subject to search prior to leaving the store, I still question why this is not allowed, as per my notes above about the rights of the property owner. Again and again, if you don't like the policy, no one is forcing you to enter.
Again you gave an example of a search within one's own private domain.

For example, if you visit a VIP's private home, are the guards at the door allowed to search you for weapons? I've never heard that this is illegal anywhere. If you don't like it, do not enter. A store is no different, other than thinking that commercial establishments and corporations have no such similar rights.
Again, based on what? There are lots of laws relating to behavior in someone else's private and commercial establishments. Why don't you have to sign to agree to all of those? What is the legal proof of such a signature requirement. Furthermore, can a signed statement wave a Constitutional Ammendment? I wonder.
Once again, proof requested.
Um no, it's been done in this US way prior to here and is not as common here as in the US.

In fact, here it's 90% the opposite. Personal belongings are checked for weapons and explosives PRIOR to entering a store, a sad fact of life.
I'm a big shopper. :yep: I've had receipts checked numerous times in the US.
What's with the antagoniostic tone, bud? :shifty:

I'm asking based on US law, not Guatamalen legal codes. :roll:
I'm asking what law prevents me from reducing these risks.
Actually, here you're very wrong. If you don't like someone and refuse to do business with them because of race creed or color, you'll be hauled into court faster than the blink of a CCTV frame.

And if you don't like it, don't do business in the US of A! :|\\








Arise, Letum!

Did a bit more gooling. Coming up mostly with non-professional opinions, like ours.

However, please see this article, for example, written by some attorney, that says pretty much what I've said.

Or maybe he, too, shouldn't do business in the US of A. :roll:

EDIT: Oops. This article is the same one I linked to yesterday from Nolo Press. I don't know if you're familiar with Nolo but they're a very reputable and successful US (yes US) company, publishing legal assistance for the masses. My questions still stand.

Another article indicating that it is a shop owner's right to ask to see a receipt, to confirm goods purchased and that this does not negate 4th Amendment rights of the consumer:

Consumer Rights and Loss Prevention Exit Stops.

The article originally appeared in the Charlotte (NC) Observer and is authored by an attorney.

I'm beginning to wonder, Subman, which of us two is in actuality defending the Consititutional laws of the United States. :hmm:

You just answered your own question with exactly what I write above:

Also, if any mall employee touched me - they risk the threat of lawsuit so they never will.

THis is not a surprising thing from Kalifornia - the communist state. ALl states have their own laws on this in the US, so you just found an example of a state that permits it.

-S

This is from Forbes - about sums up what will happen if you mess with one of these thugs:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...0shoplift.html

This is what I am used to - Washington Law:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

Here in So. Kalifornia we have a retail chain by the name of Fry's Electronics.. it is an absolute candy store for those of us involved with computers. They have many bad qualities and many good qualities.. one of the bad ones is the receipt nazi on the way out..
One Day wifezilla and I went shopping at Fry's.. bought a sh&*t load of stuff.. and on the way out we were confronted by the receipt nazi... Wifezilla hands over the receipt and the guy is staring at it.. then looks in the bag... back at the receipt.. then he announces.. "the cashier made a mistake.. charged you for 10 candy bars instead of one" (they have candy bars on the exit lines). He then took it over to the cashier and got us a return of about $3.50 ! Not a big deal or an exorbitant amount of money.. but it goes to show that the recipt checker sole purpose is not just to inhibit theft!