RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 10:27:51 AM)

Scenario:
I go to a store. I make my selections. I stand in a line. The goods I intend to purchase are scanned, priced and totalled. I pay for my goods, they now belong to me. My goods are placed in some kind of container like a plastic or paper bag and placed into a shopping cart. I am given a receipt for the transaction just described. I start my exit from the store.

Question:
Why should I allow anyone to stop or question me? Is there anything remotely resembling either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that a person moving a shopping cart of filled store bags and holding a receipt is a thief?

I think the answer has to be an unequivocal "No!"

-----

Here's a funny thing: the person at the store that wants to see your receipt and check your bags probably isn't even a security officer, just some store clerk/flunky. Even a store security person isn't a police officer. Even the police have no expectation of anyone doing much more than answering questions about their name.

You simply do not have to submit to any kind of stop or search without some reasonable basis for such a demand. You are absolutely allowed to belligerently stand upon your rights and resist any unlawful attempts to coerce you to waive your rights.




farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 10:55:12 AM)

Additionally, YOU have been under their video and audio surveillance the ENTIRE TIME.

*IF* there is evidence of a Crime, THEY HAVE IT ON TAPE. That's why they spend all that money on the cameras and microphones.



farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 11:04:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

And 'this situation', and 'such a situation' can only refer to exactly the same thing?

That's fantastic Fa.
[8|] [8|]


If you mean "Governed by Ohio State law, and in the case of where the ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT in an Unlawful Detention complaint is arrested for complying WITH Ohio State law.", then yes.

You cited the case where a SUSPECT IN A CRIME refused to provide identification during an investigation OF THAT CRIME.

Apples. Pintos..




Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:07:11 PM)

I cited the case where a US citizen was arrested for refusing to show the police identification. and the US Supreme court held that his conviction did not violate the Constitution.
And I'm the one who has repeatedly pointed out that the OP case was a different set of circumstances, and that in that state, someone could not legitimately be convicted ala Hiibel. But don't let the facts slow you down one bit.
[8|]

Keep up the fantastic work Fa...



Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

"As of 2007, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained do anything more than state her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court."

So all of these assertions that you *MUST* show ID are currently false..."


....HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=542&page=177




From your own link:

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Decided June 21, 2004
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the state law's application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
 
Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination....

... (b) The officer's conduct did not violate Hiibel's Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment.  

...The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Gosh, who to believe...Wikipedia, or the actual wording of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling.
 
[:D]



Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:25:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Scenario:
I go to a store. I make my selections. I stand in a line. The goods I intend to purchase are scanned, priced and totalled. I pay for my goods, they now belong to me. My goods are placed in some kind of container like a plastic or paper bag and placed into a shopping cart. I am given a receipt for the transaction just described. I start my exit from the store.

Question:
Why should I allow anyone to stop or question me? Is there anything remotely resembling either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that a person moving a shopping cart of filled store bags and holding a receipt is a thief?

I think the answer has to be an unequivocal "No!"

-----

Here's a funny thing: the person at the store that wants to see your receipt and check your bags probably isn't even a security officer, just some store clerk/flunky. Even a store security person isn't a police officer. Even the police have no expectation of anyone doing much more than answering questions about their name.

You simply do not have to submit to any kind of stop or search without some reasonable basis for such a demand. You are absolutely allowed to belligerently stand upon your rights and resist any unlawful attempts to coerce you to waive your rights.




Bitatruble posted this on page 1

http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:42:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
I cited the case where a US citizen was arrested for refusing to show the police identification. and the US Supreme court held that his conviction did not violate the Constitution.


Not quite right...

Hiibel was convicted for refusing to identify himself. The court suggested that he could have satisfied the statute by making a verbal statement instead of showing ID. You are contending he had to show ID - which the decision in Hiibel does not reach. They only had to decide that Hiibel's actions did not conform to the statutory demands on him during a Terry Stop.

There is no case that supports the contention that you must show ID.

The case in Ohio is an interesting case because the man did not refuse to identify himself. He refused to submit to be stopped or to a search of his property AND he notably refused to provide ID (like a driver's license). However, he was perfectly willing to give his name. In other words, he met the Hiibel standard - now the question really is does he have to show ID.





Sinergy -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:48:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Read:

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

Discuss:

If we do not break EMPLOYEES and COPS of this "Show Me Your Papers" mindset, we will continue to see our freedoms taken away.




I just smile and wander on by.

Sinergy



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:50:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
... (b) The officer's conduct did not violate Hiibel's Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment.


That's called "obiter dictum." You're cherry picking what you want to see there. Read the case again, that's not the critical part of the decision.

The statutory demand is that a person asked to stop and identify must give their name. The only defense for remaining silent is the real fear that providing the name is itself a kind of self-incrimination.

That's what the case says.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 3:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
Bitatruble posted this on page 1
http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm


Non sequitur.

Stay on point please. I have no idea what you are trying to say if anything...



Sinergy -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:03:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

The statutory demand is that a person asked to stop and identify must give their name. The only defense for remaining silent is the real fear that providing the name is itself a kind of self-incrimination.

That's what the case says.


Do I have to give my own name, or just a name?

JennaBushergy



thompsonx -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:11:00 PM)

I have heard it said that you should not argue with a man with a gun....bushwack him.



instynctive -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:25:03 PM)

Just show the reciept asnd the content of your bag and conmtinue on.  It takes 2 seconds and they don't even compare 9 times out of 10.

It *is* a complete joke if you ask Me.. if I were to lift something, I wouldn't take the time to remove it from My pocket or shoe or underwear to place it in the bag during the stretch between the registers and the door...



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:34:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Do I have to give my own name, or just a name?


Unsourced from memory: the SCOTUS has opined that giving a false name could open one to a charge of "obstruction of justice."

Personally, I think you shouldn't even have to identify yourself. But that's where we are...



KatyLied -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:37:29 PM)

Is this wrong?  I went to a huge, global retailer (one that many people hate) and as I made my exit, the door buzzer crook alarm went off.  I continued walking and made them follow me out to the curb.  At which time I feigned surprise and allowed them to check my receipt and package.  I figured it wasn't my fault the buzzer went off, so they should chase me, I didn't feel like I had to accomodate them.  It was no fuss and they apologized to me.



thompsonx -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 4:38:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

The statutory demand is that a person asked to stop and identify must give their name. The only defense for remaining silent is the real fear that providing the name is itself a kind of self-incrimination.

That's what the case says.


Do I have to give my own name, or just a name?

JennaBushergy


Sinergy:
If a cop lies to you that is called "good police work" if you lie to a cop it is called a felony.
thompson



Bishonenjim -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 5:29:10 PM)

Is it just me or is refusal to be searched a really messed up probable cause to search someone?  Also, I like how they arrested him for not showing his drivers license when there's a law that says you're only required to give your name/address/DOB...  Breaking the law to uphold the law (not even managing to do that this time)... what a slippery slope that is.



BossyShoeBitch -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 6:17:51 PM)

This guy is an idiot.  He wasted everyone's time just to prove he is an idiot who just MUST take a stand.
Why not take a stand on a societal ill, rather than proving to everyone that "I'm not doing it and you're not gonna make me.  neener neener neener."

Fucking dick...



farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 6:20:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

The statutory demand is that a person asked to stop and identify must give their name. The only defense for remaining silent is the real fear that providing the name is itself a kind of self-incrimination.

That's what the case says.


Do I have to give my own name, or just a name?

JennaBushergy


Sinergy:
If a cop lies to you that is called "good police work" if you lie to a cop it is called a felony.
thompson



Well, after Martha Stewart, and 18 USC 1001, we ALL know the best answer to ANY inquiry is, "Please give me your business card, and I'll have my counsel contact you if necessary".




lazarus1983 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/3/2007 6:25:53 PM)

Okay, so has anyone else here heard of the old story about the boy who cried wolf?

I think that comparing what allegedly happened to his guy at Circuit City to a police state is retarded. This is not an invasion of civil liberties, this is a privately owned entity trying to protect its own ass. As I stated, YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO SHOP THERE.

When I think of the beginnings of a police state and the erosion of civil liberties, I think of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, WWII Internment Camps, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpeus (sp?) during the Civil War...NOT this guy refusing to show a receipt to a Circuit City employee. Crying wolf each time something like this happens, will eventually make us not care when a REAL threat occurs.

Kind of like how those worthless scumbags Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton scream racism so many times that we no longer listen or care. Many people are to the point where when someone screams racism, we just roll our eyes and say "whatever."

And as I pointed out, we don't know if this is what really happened. He could have left out details to make himself appear more in the right.

I think we've all given this man and his little drama more attention than it deserves. There are more important, legitimately dangerous threats, to our civil liberties. Bag checking is nothing more than an inconvenience that can be avoided by making a choice on where you shop.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.222656E-02