digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Security Guard Powertrip

consumerist.com — TigerDirect staff in Naperville, Illinois are nuts.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Toddious, on 10/10/2007, -205/+75The only person on a power trip is the lame person who couldn't show their receipt. Is it so hard to show your receipt? If you have such a problem showing it, most likely you are doing something wrong, or you are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of others by means of a law suit. Someone wants to see my receipt? that's cool by me, I have nothing to hide, and it's their job. Oh no lets castrate people for having to do their job! maybe I can make some money out of this.
    • AmateurX, on 10/10/2007, -18/+120That's not the point. She didn't feel like showing her receipt, and she was within her rights by not doing so. In addition, the store manager & the security guard apparently don't understand civil rights, and they need to be educated...it looks like you do too.
      • ricepicker4000, on 10/10/2007, -38/+21Lets think about this, the shopper states "i've spent 10,00 dollars there over the last 3 years" so he obviously has been stopped by a security guard and has been asked to see his receipt before, so just by entering the store and buying something he should have seen this coming and not been such a moron. It seems to me that this person was looking for a fight and got one, are they happy now that they're going to press charges against a security guard for acting on suspicious activity?
        • blorc, on 10/10/2007, -27/+22I love how people are digging you down when you're absolutely right. It's funny how all the tens of thousands of dollars suddenly pops out when something happens that they don't like.
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -8/+47What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you people not understand?

            You should NEVER have to prove your innocence.

            No, not ever.
          • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6from what I understand, in america that only applies to the legal system.

            if you throw up such a fuss against proving that you have perchased the products in your possesion then it is entiraly exceptable to be highly suspicious of that person.
          • mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Ever consider using the spell check feature? The red lines indicate there may be a problem.
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9@Murdats, I'm guessing you don't live in America.

            A private citizen doesn't have the right to search another EVER.
          • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9As a former cart attendant for Target, it was my responsibility to help assist the security guard check receipts. By law we have no right to and if a customer refuses we can't say or do anything. People who turn down the receipt check almost always have something embarrassing in their bag that they don't want to be seen with more than they have to, like tampons, underwear, certain personal hygiene products... The people who shoplift almost always hide the stolen merchandise in their clothing and walk up towards the exit and bolt out of the store.
        • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Suspicious activity? What's suspicious about trying to walk out of a store after paying for your goods? the receipt check was voluntary, he didn't want to be bothered, and they illegally detained him. He wasn't acting suspiciously or they would have told the officer they suspected him of shoplifting. This is basically a bunch of ***** just because the security guard had a stick up his ass. He wasn't doing his job by harassing the guy. Unless it's an mandatory receipt check he doesn't have to stop and shouldn't be expected to.
        • oddmanout, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7walking out of the store is not what was suspicious... outright refusing to show his receipt was suspicious. he's apparently been in that store a lot, he said he spent like 10,000 dollars. why does it all the sudden bother him to have his receipt checked now? And if it bothered him to have his receipt checked, why did he go in there in the first place?
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It doesn't matter how much he (or she? I didn't see an indication of gender) has spent or even if he has been in there every single day. If he chooses to make a stand on principle that's his right. It's just like the guy who recently was stopped for wearing a gun on his hip in New Hampshire, yes, the dude probably could have not worn his gun (I happen to be for not owning one), but it was his right, it was legal, and he chose to take a stand about something he believed in passionately. If this receipt person was taking a stand on an issue that he/she believed in passionately, then he/she was within his/her rights to do so. Think of an issue you feel passionate about... something you'd be willing to take a stand on, even in the face of ridicule (if you're brave)... you might be able to see where this person was coming from.
          Further, TigerDirect and its subcontracted security service vendors DO need to know when they have crossed the line. If for no other reason, because it costs them money, reputation, and potentially further unnecessary oversight.

          "Pick your battles" applies to all parties here.
        • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've shopped there many times as well, and on a few occasions they haven't checked my receipt... although it is the norm...

          Still if I ever forget and put my receipt in my pocket... It's within my rights to ignore that security "officer"
      • mycoplasma, on 10/10/2007, -35/+6She had nothing to lose by showing her recept, and it would have taken very little effort to reach into her bag and pull it out for the security guard. The fact that she would resist that much is suspicious behavior. Not only that, but if she believes her rights are being violated, she should sue the security company, not the guard who was only doing what he was told.

        IMO, this woman should be arrested for disturbing the peace
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25You should work for TSA. I suspect that you would fit in nicely.
        • bicyclethief, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Yes, she did have something to lose. Her right to refuse.
        • snea, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5I don't understand why it was such a big deal for her to simply show her receipt. It would have taken about as much effort as her "No thanks." and she could have avoided a big ***** confrontation. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill...
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11@ snea,

          Yeah, just like Rosa Parks could've just moved to the back of the bus, right?
          • CZzyzx41, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2There's a big ***** difference between the two. If you can't see that, then perhaps you're 1/4 retard.
          • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6@ CZzyzx41 - Care to explain the "big ***** difference"? I mean, how do you know they don't check every 5th receipt, and she happens to be #5 every time? I mean, even if not, Rosa Parks could have easily avoided a huge mountain of "*****" by just complying and moving to the back of the bus. I'm so ***** glad she didn't, and I'm so ***** glad this lady didn't show her receipt. Maybe you like living in Nazi-ville where you hold your head down and agree-to when authority asks you to eat their *****, but I sure the hell don't, and won't; Matter it be sitting in the back of a bus, or showing some stupid receipt for something I legally just bought, just because it's someone's policy.
      • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Don't you know it's people like Toddious that are the example that organizations and especially Homeland Security like to see. Just because it's within your rights means nothing. It's all about being conditioned to do what your told. Then the rights can be taken away that much easier. Just do what your told, be good little sheeple, and eventually they will have a nice little prison camp..err re-education camp for you. Then you can say hi to Toddious, he'll be one of the first ones there.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2To me it sounds like the writer was on a "Consumer Power Trip" because he knew his rights. Honestly, if a security guard approaches you EVEN though you don't have to show your receipt, why not show it? The security guard may end up apologizing and explaining why he had to do that as a lot of them do. All ends well. To get banned, humiliated in front of other customers, then be challenged to take this to court and go through months of legal battle only to be told by the judge that he should have done the right thing and just shown the receipt just seems messed up.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're missing the point - the point is she was within her rights to do so, felt strongly about it, and decided to take a stand on something she felt passionate about. You probably have at least one thing you feel passionate about and would be willing to take a stand on... chances are you even have an issue others might consider trivial and might ridicule you for. But we've all been there on "principle" issues. Yes, sometimes it seems like a lot of ***** to go through to prove a point, but if people didn't have the guts to take stands on issues like these we would have even fewer rights to stand up for... slowly basic rights can be eroded, and if principled people don't take a stand it gets worse.
        • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most often when I approach customers for their receipts is when they set off the store alarm, which is no big deal because the cashiers tend to forget to de-magnetize the anti-theft alarms and I just want to make sure that they don't go all the way home just to have to come back so we can remove one of those tags that spew ink. I also check that the cashier actually rung up the merchandise too.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1when the cops come knocking on your door and asks just to look around, you go ahead and let them in, each and every time they ask, k? Then when they leave (w/ or w/o you) you can think happy thoughts on how you let your rights dwindle away along with your sense of humanity.

    • MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -11/+63He is on a powertrip for standing up for his own rights? Nice to see you support less freedoms...
    • Braxo, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Let me just show my star on my chest...
    • sleze, on 10/10/2007, -1/+47I generally have no problem showing my receipt. But if there is a line to LEAVE the store? You're damn right I will walk right past the checker.
      • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I've run into problems doing this. And I also know the drill.

        The solution is not live some place where you rights are not respected.
      • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I do *exactly* the same thing when I go to Fry's Electronics. If there is no one there, I figure "sure, I'll let the receipt checkers be happy and earn their pay." But when there's a LINE TO GET OUT??? I just walk past them and have almost never been bothered. I don't feel that I should have to wait in a line to prove to the company that I just bought something from that I bought it rather than stole it.

        Costco is different, IMHO, because it's a "membership" place and I haven't checked, but I'd assume it's in the membership agreement or something.
        • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Costco and Sam's club have every right to check you because they're a paid membership club only.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Gir53457
          They ONLY have the authority to check the receipt IF it is in the membership agreement and you agreed to it. However, in most states, if they detain you for more than 10 mins, the illegal detaining of you, trumps their policy, unless they are accusing you of shoplifting.
    • chizzlechest420, on 10/10/2007, -47/+8I'm with you...this is a prime example of someone that needs to find themselves a HOBBIE, he probably made those calls/emails in between his dungeons and dragons matches.....LOSER, nobody cares about your 'unlawful restraint ...and next time stop tying up the police with your petty Bull$hit you TOOL
      • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6well you're definitely wrong about nobody caring. unless, that is of course, regarding your opinion.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Yeah, not having to prove you can read to vote was probably a bad idea too, right?
        [/sarcasam]
      • blazes816, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Buried for that D&D comment.
      • Chigga75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Her "hobbie" seems to be protecting civil rights. Just because someone cares about something you don't doesn't mean they're stupid.

        And btw, how the ***** do you misspell a word like hobby when we have spellcheck? Let me guess... Is it because you "have a life"?
    • Wormfather, on 10/10/2007, -4/+38"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependant on the system, that they will fight to protect it"
      • trance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1damn fine and apropos reference!

        One small change to match the original makes it even more meaningful: "inert" should be "inured"

        (and yes i see the other misspelling, but i don't want to be a TOTAL correction-nazi now do i?)
    • drunkinbda, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4Seriously, this story goes either way imo. as for the consumer.. just show the damn receipt... its not hard...its their job to ask. think of how you'd like someone to be if you had to ask them for it. As for the guards and managers, they def overreacted. Unless the author was caught shoplifting, they should have just called the police and complained about potential shoplifter, got he licence plate or something and left it to the cops.

      This story reminds me of the asstard that was complaining about gettin takin to the extra security check at the airport becuase he wouldnt take his sunglasses off when requested. I can understand people standing up for their rights... but wtf why cause so many problems for something that is so trivial. Its an f'n receipt, or just takin off your sunglasses quickly... why are these rights that people think we need to defend to the bitter end.

      If the guard asked to search the persons purse or backpack then ya...complain like all hell... but this is just asinine.
      • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My sunglasses which I wear all the time, except to sleep, are prescription, so I'd be sight-disabled if I was required to take them off.

        It's the clear glasses that are the potential problem anyway. Last year on Survivor, one of the chicks started a fire with her clear glasses! Just imagine how terrorists would use such a tool on an airplane!
      • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think they actually just want to the guy's eye color.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@drunkinbda, you really just don't get it then. ALL RIGHTS ARE WORTH TAKING A STAND ON. Yes, she could've been a drone and decided to put up with it, but she realized she and the rest of us don't HAVE to, and obviously she felt it was a right worth protecting. If you don't protect ALL your rights you're likely to start losing them.

        What you're missing is the bigger picture.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@drunkindba, you are defiantly not seeing the forest from the trees.

        As for your comment "if the guard asked to search the persons purse or backpack then ya...complain like all hell" - Most membership stores, like Costco, Sams Club, BJs, etc. have a stipulation where you give them the right to search your purse, backpack, etc upon entering and exiting the store. So, using your logic, be sure and let them go through all your stuff, with a smile. The whole point is, they detained this lady. Which is illegal. Unfortunately, they didn't detain her enough for her to warrant damages.
    • lazyslacker, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2I'm also with you. This is the same reason they want you to show them your receipt at places like Wal-mart and Sam's. It's such a huge place, and sometimes you don't have any of your purchases bagged, and dozens of people are walking in and out of the door every minute of the day, some with very expensive items. You can't expect the people at the door to know if you actually bought that stuff you're wheeling out of the store. It's just good sense to check people's receipts against what they're taking out of the store! From a perspective of a business that wants to make money, I completely agree with the practice of checking receipts, especially at a place like tigerdirect where you can walk out the door with over $1000 of merchandise in a single cart. Why not just show them your receipt and prove you bought the stuff from the store that you're walking out of and that you SHOULD want to remain in business and who's anti-theft practices you should endorse fully. I mean, if nothing else, do YOU want people walking out of a store with stolen goods when you had to purchase them? Definitely not. So don't be a troublemaker. Showing your receipt to a security guard and walking away within 15 seconds is a lot less trouble than not cooperating with a store's anti theft procedures (which, again, you as a customer should support).

      Should the security guard have gone that far? Of course not, but I definitely see why it's their policy to do that. It just makes good sense from a business point of view.
      • luckykpolice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They've never checked my receipt at Sam's. It's usually (1) Hand doorman receipt (2) He/she marks with highlighter (3) Leave. I think it's a dominance thing.
        • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They serve 2 purposes, 1 traffic control of outgoing carts and 2 a final confirmation that the buyer actually has a membership.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The author stated that the guard and the manager both agreed that she hadn't behaved as if she'd been shoplifting, or something to that effect (they hadn't observed any questionable behavior that would lead them to believe she'd stolen anything). It is the burden of the store's security personnel to act on people they suspect of shoplifting based on observed actions. Simply refusing to voluntarily show them a receipt does not mean someone has stolen something. That's the equivalent of just walking up to someone and saying, "I don't trust you at all - prove that you're honest!"
      • projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's why stores have anti-shoplifting gates.
    • TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -25/+3It's her civil right to not follow the store's procedures? Why did she even pay? It's her civil right to have what she wants for free. Hell, why don't you go to Wal-Mart, open a TV dinner and a microwave, cook it and eat it.. because it's your civil right to eat. Or why not just drive up to the door and park on the sidewalk, since it's your civil right to decide how far you want to walk to the doors...

      Regardless of if it is a right, it's a store policy. If she doesn't like it, she has every civil right to shop somewhere else.
      • ashchristopher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You might want to research what a civil right actually it. It might give you some more credibility.
      • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I'm glad you're not running things. The policy is voluntary, not mandatory.
      • copaceticZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7this is easily one of the most ignorant post's I've ever read
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey asshat, one is stealing, the other is paying for something and then not being required to prove you're an honest individual (especially since you didn't appear to steal anything, as both the manager and the guard stated). By the way, *****-for-brains, she already stated she wouldn't shop there again.

        You obviously do not understand the difference between basic rights, civil rights, limited rights, or privileges. Read a book.
      • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The stores do not have the right, to make policies that are in violation of our American civil rights... -_-
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The law trumps the stores policy. Civil rights or not. You should call them Civil Liberties, because technically they are not rights.
    • AesSedai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There's a difference between a policy that's compulsory and a policy that's voluntary. You think voluntary policies should be enforced? There's a reason that policy is voluntary. If the store wishes to strong arm 'non-receipt showers, they need to change this policy to a compulsory one!
    • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Come on, do any of you really like showing your receipt? I'm not even sure it does any good. We all shop, how many times have we seen a guard give no more than a cursory glance at a receipt before letting you go? This woman caused a lot of grief for everyone in the store but secretly don't you wish you never had to show a receipt for a good you just purchased a minute ago, ever again?
      • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What do you mean "wish you never had to show a receipt". I don't have to wish. I DON'T have to show a receipt. I refuse to show my a receipt for items that I own. You've let stores convince you that they have power over you. You still act like it's their option to stop you. Wow. That is scary. Just walk out. If they stop you, call the police and have them arrested. I keep hoping they will detain me so I can sew but they always back down.
      • Worldchrisis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It doesn't do any harm either, and its much easier for everyone involved just to pull the reciept out and show it to the guy instead of having a fight about it.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I never show my receipt. If I'm stopped, I ask "Are you accusing me of shoplifting?" - IF they are not so smart and say "YES', then I have a great case. If they say "No", then they have no right to detain me. A few folks in Ca have made about 7K off of being falsely accused of shoplifting, in front of other patrons.
    • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Continued from above because I got cut off.
      Seriously, I think all stores need to rethink their security situation. Why aren't the electronic security tags placed in products enough? If you beep, check that person out, if you don't beep, don't bother them. Everyone will be able to get out of the store a lot faster. On a busy day at Costco, it can take 5-8 minutes to just leave the store.
      • projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At the Safeway in my city, when the alarms go off the security guards don't do anything.
      • Iwantawii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I purchase my item, show my receipt to the door man, and the damn electronic alarm still goes off on me. That's the real WTF
    • L0phtpDK, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7“Extremists run this country because moderates have ***** to do.” - John Stewart

      This pretty much sums up everything said. Just show your receipt next time or order your "$10,000" of equipment online. There are more important matters in the world.
      • bicyclethief, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3More important matters like defying oppressive authority! Oh wait.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Seriously. This is completely juvenile. Show the ***** receipt. Don't we have bigger fish to fry?
    • mikasaur, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4The person who didn't show their receipt sounds like a giant tool. And the guard and managers sounded rather oafish. But seriously, this all could have been avoided if the customer just showed her receipt. You people talk about questioning authority and standing up for your rights. But I mean, c'mon, the right to not show your receipt when walking out of a store that has very small, expensive, easily stolen objects? It's not like her right to free speech or religion was under attack. And if you flat out refuse to show your receipt doesn't that sound pretty suspicious? I think the cliche that goes well with this story is "pick your battles." She's not some champion for civil rights (we definitely need people to question authority and fight back for that, though), she's just causing trouble.
    • stackered, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3couldn't agree more. this is an angry women taking something small way too far. just ***** show your receipt next time, jesus, your not going to beat "the system" especially with lawyer fees up to $20,000. i love how she went on to state "all i wanted was to have them change their policies, or to retrain their guards." WOW, this woman is ***** annoying. its not a matter of civil rights, because she was technically correct, its a matter of being an ***** (which she was, not the guard). it was just utterly disrespectful of her to ignore a request by a guard. it may be her right, but maybe if she didn't refuse so angrily, and instead asked that she would rather not... then this wouldn't have happened. i can't believe people seriously support her all the way, its ridiculous. she was probably being detained because of her angry refusal, not because they suspected shoplifting. i'd really like to hear the guard's story, it'd probably be more realistic.

      i think she should grow and learn that some battles can't be won, its the only way to get by. its like getting carded for buying alcohol, its all policy. it may not have been right for them to detain the shopper, but i would be suspicious if someone wouldn't show a receipt as well. i'm also pretty sure they didn't "detain" him in a jail-like area, more like right next to the cashier area.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0who said she "refused so angrily"? I guess it was you. The same person that used the phrase, "her angry refusal". In fact the account of things is very matter of fact and lacking in any emotion. YOU are the one displaying emotion and projecting it onto the situation.
        Personally, I detect misogyny in your text, e.g., "this is an angry women" [sic], "WOW this wman is ***** annoying." Perhaps you should see a therapist about your feelings towards women.
        Remember the story on dig about the guy wearing the gun on his hip in NH? it was his right and I bet you'd support him (personally I don't like guns, but it is legally his right to do so).
    • 300zxer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I agree with you.
      Yes it is nice to see people stand up to seemingly actual laws and rules before the laws become overbearing. Like if they had to search you every time you left Walgreen's.

      But this is different. The woman is obviously weird. "oh no thanks. I don't want to show you the receipt that's in my pocket." WHY? because I would rather take 2 hours out of my day and call multiple people, wait in line and be harassed to try to fight for an illusion of justice. Just show your receipt.

      So in conclusion. The woman was right in her own sense and I am glad she did that. I don't like corporations having laws like that over us. But thanks crazy lady for wasting your time like that!

      Furthermore, I am happy that Tiger Direct goes through measures like this to stop shoplifters (and stupid people) from shopping there. This means that less money is spent on lost merchandise and more on sales and savings.

      Thanks you stupid lady!
      • androothebear, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2seriously. this stubborn bitch just wanted attention
    • Killerah, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I agree with Toddious, there was really no reason to be difficult, it's the guy's job to check receipts, why in the world would you "not feel like showing your receipt"? Is it really worth standing around and being detained for an extended period of time? That's great that she knew her rights, but I think it's ridiculous that she would be stubborn enough after all that not to show her receipt just to make the point that she didn't have to. If this is her idea of making a statement I think she needs to get a life, all I see here is a lady making a scene.
    • jaredsain, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I totally agree with you Toddious. Whoever the person was that didn't show the receipt, they were retarded. What's their problem? There are plenty of stores that check receipts. I have no problem with the practice.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll think of you, and people like you when I wonder how could we have let so many of our rights be taken away from us.
    • danarama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i worked for securitas. i've been in all sorts of situations from being told that i was going to have my face slammed into the curb for asking someone to move their car to catching a guy steal a steak and go to jail 3 days before christmas, but he didn't give a ***** and actually followed me to the back room to wait for the cops. so many people over react to security, asking for a receit on suspicion or random check seems reasonable. i don't care if her rights would have been broken it's just a procedure and it's NOT a big deal. sometimes having rights broken is a big deal especially from security and cops are doing it, but really in this case just show the receit and forget about it. VOICE your opinion if you have to because most gaurds listen and have a brain beleive it or not. this is not being rendered on terrorist charges because you're wearing a turbin.
      • Kektain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"i don't care if her rights would have been broken..."
        ***** you and everyone you love, pig.
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you're a tool
      please don't breed
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I live near this TigerDirect store... yeah, these guys are nuts... plus I always have problems with the stuff I buy there... =/

      I've walked out a few times, even when the guy was yelling to show my receipt... These stores must learn... that they are legally not allowed to detain people... they can ask nicely... but they can't do anything else...
  • texx, on 10/10/2007, -26/+285One of the reason our rights continue to be eroded is people blindly submitting to these "policies" without bothering to ask questions or stand up for themselves. So when one person deviates from the pattern of expected behavior they are branded "criminal"; or depending on where they deviate "terrorist".
    • AmateurX, on 10/10/2007, -10/+40Well said.
      • japherwocky, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3So if I deviate from the pattern of expected behavior by pointing out that I think texx is kind of a moron for getting worked up about SHOWING RECEIPTS - I'm really just fighting the matrix.
        • digichris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You are a ***** moron.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2your comment really either doesn't make sense at all, or, if it does, it lacks the necessary construction to make a point.
      • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Blindly submitting to these policies??? Well said if you're a egotistical fear mongering doucebag. Don't go in the store if you don't like the policy.
        • digichris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What if all stores adopted this policy?
        • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Then the people who don't like it will have to cry in a dark corner while the rest of us spend that extra 10 seconds with someone over nothing after satisfying our consumerist desires.
    • DeathBorn, on 10/10/2007, -50/+18What is wrong with you guys? It was just a simple reciept check, high-traffic stores do that to make sure people paid for items. Of course you're going to be branded a shoplifter if you overtly refuse to show your reciept. It's not some big conspiracy, and that guard was right not to let the guy pass, since the only people who did that before were probably shoplifters. The screaming part, maybe not, but he was asking for it.
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -7/+42No, the guard was wrong to not let the guy pass, because he had absolutely no right to stop or detain him.

        It's called civil rights. They don't have the right to stop you if you haven't actually stolen something. Whether you consider their request to show your receipt is beside the point. Their request is a request only, you can refuse and not be in the wrong for refusing.
        • MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6I may be wrong here but it might also be illegal to stop you even if they did see you steal something. The most they can do is call the police.
        • ethon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That depends on the state you live in. There was a digg post on something similar a few months back...I'll try to find it
        • epsilona01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18What? You're branded a criminal because you don't like people bothering you? No, it's no conspiracy all.. it's just a big pain in the ***** ass.

          When I go to Fry's Electronics, especially when it's busy, I don't like having to wait in line... again... just to prove to someone that I've already given them all the money they're going to get from me today.

          If they want to stop me from leaving their store, they can call the police and press charges for shoplifting. Doesn't the cashier make sure that people are paying for their items? Isn't the cashier's job to make sure that the company gets all the money they're due? I've spent time with them already, going over my purchases, declining the Fry's card (again, i dont want the damn thing already) waiting for them to call someone over because they don't know what they're doing, etc.

          If they're concerned about me taking something from the store after I've passed the register... WHY PUT ***** IN A LOCATION BEYOND THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE SURRENDER MONEY?!?!?!

          Sure, it's usually quick and easy to show your receipt. But not always. Sometimes I don't think and put it in my pocket, then I need to remember where I put it. Sometimes it's in a bag that I don't feel like digging through.

          I gave you the money. Just let me leave. If you want to hassle me and make me wait, I can charge you for my time. Personally, I charge people $100/hr for work, normally in no less than 30 min increments.

          (comment system wont let me reply to DeathBorn)
          • 8086ed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I haven't been to Fry's since about a year ago when this sort of thing happened to me. The guy followed me to my car and said he'd call the cops. I told him to get my plate number and look at the tapes. He put his finger on my chest and said "You aren't moving until I see your receipt." I explained to him that that was sexual harassment (unwanted touching), and that because I purchased everything in my possession, I didn't have to do anything. He says "Alright, but don't come crying to me when the police come knocking at your door."

            Douche.
          • elcaminos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just curious if you've had a problem declining the reciept check at frys....I've been tempted to do it many times.
          • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I do *exactly* the same thing when I go to Fry's Electronics. If there is no one there, I figure "sure, I'll let the receipt checkers be happy and earn their pay." But when there's a LINE TO GET OUT??? I just walk past them and have almost never been bothered. I don't feel that I should have to wait in a line to prove to the company that I just bought something from that I bought it rather than stole it.
        • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1you make $100 an hour and don't know how to use the comment system on digg and you can't remember to not put your receipt in your pocket when you go to frys? Why do you lie to the internet? Also if you don't like shopping at frys stop going there.
    • jlewicki, on 10/10/2007, -16/+30this sounds like a setup though, ... "telling me I was banned from the store (fine by me, I've spent easily over $10,000 in the last few years at Tigerdirect and planned to take my business elsewhere if this was the kind of treatment I could expect) and so on."

      so, for the past some odd years you've had no problem showing your receipt? Now after having brushed up on the law you feel obligated to not do the simple task of showing them your receipt. It's more courtesy then anything. They don't want ***** stolen from them, do them the favor in participating to thwart any would be thieves. It's their store, their rules. You dont like it, shop somewhere else.
      • WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Perhaps in the past they didn't press the issue when s/he didn't show their receipt
        • AesSedai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5jlewicki, Tiger Direct has an online presence as well. Perhaps the 10K was spent that way. And, again, it's not a 'rule' persay. It's a voluntary policy.
      • mescad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Don't you think it's possible that this person said "no thanks" every time, and it was just this one security guard that decided to be a jerk about it?

        The only time I've had a problem with refusing was a Best Buy in NC on Black Friday. I was in a hurry to get to the next store, and didn't feel like waiting with the 30 other sheep in line by the exit. The guard got mad, and I just informed him that I was in a hurry and didn't need my receipt to be checked, and left. They have no right to detain you, so if it's not convenient to you, why waste your time? As I said, this is the only time I've had trouble, and I refuse to show my receipt every time.
        • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What happened that time? How did it go down?
      • masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't see how it's reprehensible even if this is the first time this person has declined a receipt request. Is it not possible that s/he may not have known their rights, and what the retail outlets are legally allowed to do, prior to this experience, and after reading about it on the internet or elsewhere, have then decided to stand up for his/her rights the next time that they could?
    • Wormfather, on 10/10/2007, -12/+19You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependant on the system, that they will fight to protect it"
      • doshindude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7this isn't the Matrix.
      • danlas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Dugg your comment because that movie was awesome
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+111) You already said this. 2) Quoting the Matrix as if it's some deep philosophical point is ***** stupid. Even more stupid than quoting V for Vendetta.
        • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Hey, shut the ***** up. "The Matrix" is one of the best movies ever. And the quote in the above comment is quite apropos [look it up] to the situation.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5The Matrix is a pandering, pseudo-philosophical piece of *****. I bury you.
    • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yes, but to oppose, it cost this person a lot of time and trouble. I would have give in and it'll clear up the confusion right away.
      • Sedako, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And that is why our country continues to spiral closer into becoming a police state. Everyone is either afraid or too lazy to take action. If more people stood up to defend their rights, perhaps we may not have lost some of them. If you know your rights, don't give into someone who wants to go against them.
        • gwhardyiv, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2Yeah. Like showing a receipt is a violation of your dignity.
      • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1TypeEE is a wise (wo)man.
        The reason why you people get hazed so readily is because you think a few remote instances of power abuse directly relates to a national scale; even a world scale on some accounts. This incident and others like it are NOT why we are in the current crisis. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the current predicament isn't based on the current President or Vice. Unfortunately, they have to answer to higher ups as well and it's not their countrymen and women. The only pitfall opposed to having another leader is that Bush is not a capable diplomat. Bleh, anyway, getting off topic. Educate yourselves. You all suck. Digg me because it makes a difference.
        • withoutamartyr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You insult us, then expect us to digg you up?
        • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0uh.. yes. You should feel honored. Talk back again and I'll have to check your digg reciept.
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Garbagio: You think digging you makes a difference? Then it would make sense if you thought actively standing up for your rights when they are threatened makes a difference. Oh, but you don't. It relates to the national scale because it shows that few people are of a mentality to protect their rights. What's more, it shows that other people are unsympathetic to people protecting their rights. You're not just wrong, you're inconsistent. Anyway if it makes you happy, I dugg you... down.
    • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Maybe this is just the voice of a very worn out and singled out individual, but I would have just shown him the receipt anyways. A lot of companies do this to make sure that you don't shoplift anything. Costco and Frys both have systems in place where they "check" everyone's receipt to ensure that you paid the correct amount. It's idiotic, sure, but what rights are you losing by showing the security guard your receipt? More importantly, weigh the options out:
      1) Refuse the security guard. Pros: Cop comes and tells the security guard was wrong... Uh... You don't have to take your receipt out. Cons: You're stuck there for as long as it takes for a cop to arrive, the cop might just tell you to show the receipt since the store has its own policies.
      2)Show the dick a receipt. Pros: You get to leave the store, you make the security guard look like a douche bag, and the same guy can't do it twice or it'll be harassment. Cons: You have to take the receipt out of your bag. Oh, and I guess the government wins.
      • Kektain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The right you're forfeiting is that of not needing to submit to private citizens' demands that you stop and stay where you are, and of not needing to submit your property to the inspection of others.

        Frankly, the fact that you don't see anything wrong with the basic premise of random joe pulling you over and demanding to go through your property disgusts me. Remember, if a private security guard is legally able to do it, so's a random joe - private security doesn't get anything special legally, except shopkeeper's privilege if they see you hiding something.
    • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3The security guard wasn't fooled by this lopsided goon's alpha male swagger. When someone calls ya names, pull out the cell phone and ring up a new pair of balls in a blue suit in female form.
    • xciton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Yup, just as I said below. Next it will be "Papers please sir..."
      • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Explain the reason behind that and I'll digg you up.
        • sweetrelease, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6We're getting close to that if the Real ID gets put into effect
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Thankfully, Real ID has a good chance of going down in flames.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3I'm not sure how you tie a private company receipt check into the erosion of our rights, especially since the police officer, a representative of the government, agreed with the customer. (By the way, I thought diggers hated cops. This one was very helpful--where are the comments about that?) The problem here is that the customer is a stupid douchebag, and was looking to cause trouble. He should have shown his receipt, and then complained later. I guess the point is, he had his rights, but he complains as if he expected anything different from what he got after his ridiculously stupid and suspicious behavior. If you're going to make a stand, do so understanding what will come of it and accepting that fact.
      • Kektain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just to address a side point: digg hates pigs, not cops. Cops are the guys and gals who actually do the job right, and I personally have a lot of respect for them. Pigs trample peoples' rights and abuse the trust invested in them, and I wouldn't mind seeing every damn one buried.
    • michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Call the security company that employs this person: (630)963-9456. The offending guard's name is Malcolm Melton.

      I called, and the manager threatened me if he got more harassment from people "from the Internet".
    • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well arn't we a fear mongering prick? "So when one person deviates from the pattern of expected behavior they are branded "criminal"" Considering the expected behavior is not to shoplift, that statement is quite true.
      • spectre_25gt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, the expected behavior is to show the receipt. Shoplifting was not at issue here.
        • cojerk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1> Shoplifting was not at issue here.

          How do you know?
    • digichris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well said indeed, I think that was this guy's whole point.
    • Herostratus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Heh,

      Not me! I refuse to blindly obey. In fact I got arrested last Saturday because my refusal to submit led to an argument with security (at the Hard Rock Cafe) which in turn brough the police into the scene. After attempting to explain the situation to the officer and being dismissed like I didnt exist the officer started to shove me in the direction of the exit. I then refused to submit again and got my stupid ass arrested. Doesnt matter though. I still stood up to stupid policy.
      Other acts of civil disobediance include cussing out a large liquor store manager over their ID policies (one member of my party had an under 21 ID even though he was 22 and they refused to allow sale), walking out of class during lockdown (got suspended) and a good number of other deeds including refusing to provide a SSID no a non Social Security person, refusing to have a bank account (people always look at me as if I were a loon for that one, they'll get it better when their bank closes and cant pay them back due to fractional reserve banking), refusing to work off the clock at a former employer (currently in class action status), refusing to drug test and the list goes on and on.
      Refuse and resist

      Strats
      • Teej, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's a difference between not submitting to stupidity, and just being stupid. Apparently, you're doing the latter.
    • suser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Keep in mind the 4th Amendment does not apply to security guards. They can do whatever they want. To the same extent, you dont have to listen to them because they are not cops....so just walk away next time.
      • Kektain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To clarify: they have the same rights as normal citizens, plus shopkeeper's privilege (i.e. if they see you stuffing something in your pockets, I believe they can detain you for some period until the police arrive).

        But I agree with your fundamental point. Just walk away.
    • luseton, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0This is so dumb..Just show the receipt. The store have the right to protect themselves from thiefs. If you do not have anything to hide, you should not have a problem. Pretty much all electronic stores do that now. Including Fry's. So if you don't want to shop there..i will feel sorry for you becuase there are not going to be any stores that doesnt have the receipt inspectors. You have rights but you still need to show your passport when you come back into your own country right? You have rights but does that mean you can take a dump on the road? You have rights but does that mean you can walk up to White House and demand an entrance? HAVE A LITTLE COMMEN SENSE !!!
      • Kektain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about this: I have the right to come up to you, stop you from whatever you're doing, and root through all your stuff. I will also call into question your legitimacy, and suggest you enjoy sexual encounters with small woodland creatures. After all, I felt someone brush past me, what if you stole my wallet?

        Christ. Do you people really believe this?
    • danarama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1it's true rights are being erroded but this is like an extremely minor example. so lame it's lame.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly, If you don't stand up for the rights you have, you will lose them.

      I commend this person, and anyone else who refuses to show receipts at a store, in situations such as these... because they are defending their rights. I would do so as well if I was in the situation.
    • SIRBERUS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This isn't even completely about rights. It has a lot to do with efficiency.

      I was the selected victim of a "receipt check" at a Walmart one time, and I, of course complied. I mean, why not? Why cause an issue if you have a receipt and can just show it?

      Well, I'll tell you why. Apparently when the security guard read my receipt, she claimed that I had a product in my bad I did not pay for. She then called for more security, and had me stand aside. I asked for the receipt, but she denied it to me and so I waited. I waited in front of the store for about 5 minutes looking like a douche thief until the managers came over. 10 more minutes passed as the managers asked me about the product that "was not on my receipt". Finally I demanded they show me the receipt, and when they did... low and behold... all the items were accounted for.

      The idiot security/receipt checker lady had skipped a line or something while reading my receipt, and because of it, I was harassed for 15 minutes.

      That is why I will never again agree to a "receipt" check.
  • peekpoke, on 10/10/2007, -5/+93The key issue was verbal abuse. If they had recorded the conversation it would be powerful evidence. Not enough to sue, but enough to make them look very bad in public, enough to likely get an apology.



    • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -24/+3However as in recent articles you'll find that audio recording without someone's consent is totally illegal.
      • howyoudoin, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5as long as one party knows then its illegal you moron
        • n3demonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I believe audio recording is allowed. However, recording over a phone line would be wiretapping.

          Video recording also includes audio recording and plenty of people are allowed to video tape in public.
        • Snaieke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Actually it depends on the state... you moron :)
          http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11No, that depends on the state. And in most states, recording what is said in your presence, to you, is perfectly legal.
        • MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Any idea on where to check this? I've though about taking my voice-recorder to the auto repair shop a few times.
      • howyoudoin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6i meant its legal as long as the party that is recording is a part of the conversation

        I can record any conversation i have with anyone, plain and simple

        but i can not record a conversation between two people that i am spying on
      • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0You can only record a conversation so long as there is only one party (person) other than yourself audibly talking or listening to the conversation. As soon as another party joins the conversation, you must shut off the recorder. So in other words; two people max. Yourself and one other.
      • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hey guess what?

        http://www.malagent.com/?p=171

        Before you go and act like your all smart and *****, remember I was the one who said it was illegal.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The key issue was physical restraint, according to the consumer. While the consumer may have known his rights, he escalated the issue way too far. Calling the cops because they want to mark your receipt? First of all, TigerDirect is not the only place that does this. Fry's Electronics does it, too.

      Businesses have an obligation to stop shoplifting, and while I agree that it shouldn't be mandatory to have someone rummage through your bags and mark your receipt, the consumer needs to fight at a higher level and not create a situation like he did in the store. That was wrong. The employees were following policy that they are sworn to, nothing more. If the policy cannot legally be enforced mandatorily, then the fight is at the corporate level, not trying to arrest the security guard doing his job. That is ***** and undeserving.

      The title is misleading as well (big surprise), the employee(s) did not step out of line until they mouthed off, which is hardly a powertrip. Hell, the consumer called the cops and wanted to have the security guard ARRESTED for doing what he was trained to do. You want to fight back? Let them mark the damn receipt and take the fight to corporate. This was inflammatory, what the guy did. Take your fight to where it counts, not the security guard probably making barely enough to get by.
      • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well said my friend.
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"I was just following orders" is not a defense. It may be, however, grounds for adding the higher ups to the inditement. All of you who keep arguing that the customer should just waive his rights this time and then go after corporate don't seem to be understanding this: It's more work to hire a lawyer and sue someone than it is to just wait for the cops to show up and tell the untrained security guard that he has no right to detain you. And that work isn't the responsibility of the customer to do. If the security guard gets arrested for doing something illegal, guess what? I bet he won't do it again, no matter what the stupid corporate policy says. And he might even take the initiative and sue corporate for advising him to do something unlawful. If not then sooner or later all of their security guards will get arrested and eventually someone will get the message. Or they won't have any security guards left because they'll all be in jail. Either way, people get to keep their rights, and those in a position of pseudo-authority who abuse that position get harmed rather than the rights of the citizens they would have violated.
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, by prohibiting the customer from leaving, they were in violation of the law. It's called false imprisonment. Same thing happened to me once. I got charged with it and spent 6 months in jail over it because, and I quote the judge, they "FELT like they couldn't leave." So, because of that incident, I can no longer be a security guard.
    • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2if he was verbally abused by security and managerial staff, yes, that would be PLENTY to sue.
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's an update to the article posted above:

      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/TigerDirect_Apologizes_For_Unlawfully_Detaining_Customer
  • weebmac, on 10/10/2007, -8/+164Tiger Direct is a bunch of douchebags. This is the same organization that sued Apple for diluting their trademark when Apple released OS X 10.4, codenamed Tiger.

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/05/04/28/apple_sued_over_tiger_injunction_sought.html

    I wish the market would strangle what remains of the cashflow going to these incompetents.
    • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4They sued the holy Apple, they must be douchebags! Only Apple is allowed to sue companies for using names similar to their products!
    • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, they werent douche-bags if they had an actual claim on the name, and they WERE douche-bags b/c they waited til a few days before the launch to file suit, and they requested that Apple's OS be restricted from shipping. It was ONLY PR!!!
    • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget the fact that the same people own TigerDirect *and* their rebate processing company, and that they reject the vast majority of rebates -- in simpler terms, their promises of rebates are just short of fraudulent.
  • ericdano, on 10/10/2007, -7/+41They are still in business? Wow......
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah... sadly they are... because they have an online website's HUGE supply... in a local store format... So they get a LOT of business, because people don't have to deal with shipping and online ordering...

      I've had to shop there a few times, even though I don't like it... =/ It tends to be the only/better option...
    • stevan2002, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1With deals like this its crazy how they stay in business! lol... http://digg.com/comedy/An_Offer_You_Can_t_Refuse_P ...
  • botanist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+66I've been to that Tiger Direct several times and can attest to the douchebagginess of the security staff. I had one guy go through and check model numbers on every item I had bought, thereby causing a freaking traffic jam of people trying to leave the store. Add to it there's only 1 maybe 2 cashiers at any time and a line of 20 people waiting to leave. IMHO if you're going to shop there, pay for shipping and get it online.
    • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+52Once you know, you New Egg.
    • irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12At least it's not as bad as Walmart; I watched a grandma being subjected to a purse search when they agree to a receipt check (San Diego, CA).

      Corporations don't care about proper training with regard to the law anymore, because people are so willing to submit and believe that "it's a small inconvenience, but it's OK if I don't do anything wrong."
    • AmateurX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Dugg up for use of the word "douchebagginess"
    • jmhyer51, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"IMHO if you're going to shop there, pay for shipping and get it online."

      So your response to them having a ***** store is to continue shopping with them online?
    • dcsr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Just stop shopping at tigerdirect. Newegg and Zipzoomfly FTW. They have better prices than tigerdirect anyway.
    • OsiVert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Has anyone ever had experience being a security guard that has to check receipts? It wouldn't be so hard to believe that the store tells the guards that they HAVE to check the receipts. I didn't know I had a right to just walk out the door, so I would imagine many security guards don't have an idea about this either.
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Will start exercising that right? I think it's time we all did. I have on occasion, and it's never come to a head, but now I will do so every time.
  • rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -27/+7I thought it was an article about powerstips that security guards use
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -66/+27come on, just show the receipt.
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35It's voluntary. That means you don't have to if you don't want to. What you're suggesting is that people waive their right to not be involuntarily searched and just submit.
      • imbetterthanu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Is it voluntary or is it store policy? I've never been to one of the stores so I have no idea. Do they have any signs stating you need to show your receipt or will be subject to search when leaving?
        • mescad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14A sign on the wall doesn't waive your right to leave the store without being detained.
        • imbetterthanu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I agree, but if that's their policy then people should choose to shop elsewhere if they have a problem with it.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Exactly. The sign on the wall isn't legally binding.
    • chas7926, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32NO NO NO. Showing the receipt is easy. Showing the receipt is giving in and following the mindset that if you having nothing to hide then you shouldn't worry about it. This is how rights get eroded. The person in question has the right to privacy. The business has the right to ban the individual for not following store policies, but the store does not have the right to illegally detain and verbally abuse a customer.

      Do not be sheep. We must stand up and fight these seemingly "petty" battles or else within 20 years you will have people getting arrested and questioned because a neighbor turned them in for suspicion of bad thoughts.
    • falseleftright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3C'mon, just let me search your house when your not home or listen to your calls without a warrant....wait...dam!
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Digg is filled with idiots who make up for their personal feelings of weakness by rejecting any kind of reasonable authority. Hence, they think all cops and security guards are evil. Show him your receipt like everyone else, or go to a store that doesn't check receipts. What a ***** douchebag this person was.
      • bicyclethief, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Doesn't matter how big of a ***** the customer is. They have rights that shouldn't be violated. It's the basis for civilization/society, that's all.
        • TwistedRonin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And they also have a right to shop at another store if they don't like their policy. It's a catch-22. On one hand, the person has a right to privacy as far as what they're buying(though you technically give up that right whenever you checkout). On the other hand, its the receipt check at the exit that keeps the store from taking losses due to thefts, which gives them reason to keep their prices low and bring in more merchandise. And it is probably said prices and merchandise selection that brought you to the store in the first place.
    • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some dumb schmuck with a security guard outfit isn't a "reasonable authority" in my book.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1... Come on, just give up your freedoms already...

      ... -_-
    • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@tehpwnrate:

      You know, I recently heard that freedom is the willingness of every individual to cede a great deal of discretion about what they do to lawful authority. Apparently, it doesn't include the right to not be searched by some random rent-a-cop.
  • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -13/+175Heh, let them try to keep me from exiting. They will discover that assault and battery is a two way street.

    /internet_tough_guy
    • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -31/+1ok moran - there was no assault here. critical reading skills for the win
      • acceleriter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I find it amusing that you called someone a moron without being able to spell the word. Dugg you down for supporting the sheep mentality, though.
        • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4you've never seen that picture of the guy with the sign? http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg also I'm following the herd? You are one of the many who will believe and dumb ass story posted to the consumerist no matter how little proof there is. Consumerist is for dumb people who enjoy feeling outraged for no reason.
        • AmateurX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Dugg up for providing the Moran link...been looking for that for a while now.
      • AesSedai, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0umm, that's moron, not moran
      • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6moron. critical spelling skills FTL.
      • BrokenVisage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4HE MEANT TO SPELL IT MORAN YOU IDIUTS!
    • l33tone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2On the one hand I have about a decade of study in various martial arts and combat systems, always wear a tool profile (translation: a few different tools/weapons for different purposes, defensive/offensive, lethal/nonlethal/restraint assist) and will generally refuse to take ***** from people. On the other hand I've really never needed to draw a weapon (or throw a punch for that matter) for combat purposes and can usually resolve whatever situation I'm in with words and some measure of patience.

      While I know (and -really- agree for some situations) that it would be more satisfying to go with force escalation, taking the time to call the police and wait for them to resolve the issue was the tactically and morally correct approach while still exercising your rights. That and if I was in that situation and hurt (or even gently restrained) the security guard in question when I had lighter options, my instructor would be rather disappointed in me.
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm inclined to agree. While I'm disappointed that the police didn't allow him to press charges in this case, I'm glad at least that you didn't say "oh just show the receipt."
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unlike the person the article was about, I find I do not have a way with words when confronted with physical violence. I either avoid confrontations or when trapped, fight back. I wonder what the legal ruling would be if I were to forcibly exit past the thug.
  • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+95The really funny thing about this - if you've ever been to this store, you will know that the cash registers are about fifteen feet from the exit, and the security guard stands about five feet away from the registers. The security guard is watching you pay for your items, and there is no opportunity for you to grab something *after* you've left the register. Checking receipts in this store is completely useless.
    • Jams, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10Yeah, but they could be checking the cashier hasn't "missed" somthing off the bill.
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6So have the cashier double-check the receipt against your items before giving it to you. The rented security guard isn't going to be able to match what's on the receipt with what's in your hand anyway; the cashier would.
        • litolist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The idea is that if you have a friend that's a cashier, you two can work together to scam the store. Get it?
          • acceleriter, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7Not my problem. They need to hire carefully and watch their own staff, not inconvenience me as part of their loss prevention plan.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6WHOOOSH.... right over Nougat's head on that one. Nougat, what if the cashier is COMPLICIT in the theft? The security guards are there primarily to make sure the cashiers aren't giving away freebies to their pals. The harassing of customers is just a side benefit.
          • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So have the security guard stand by the cashier and watch over *their* shoulder while they're ringing things up. If you want to watch the cashier - watch the cashier. Requiring your customers to - I know I've said this several times - waive their right to not be searched without cause is not the right way to police your employees.
    • bglav, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Jams is correct - That was always the point. I worked for a big box retail store and we constantly had stories of cashiers missing 1 out of 2 computers, etc. That being said, it was always an optional check.
      • Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16You get what you pay for. HIre better cashiers.
        • rthakidn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You're a genius. Since you can't make any inferences, we'll spell it out. The clerk intentionally "misses" items for their cousin, friend, nephew, etc. Two days later, the iPODs are being sold out of some guys trunk. Really people. Sure we all have rights, but so does the big bad corporation that is in business to earn money for shareholders, provide jobs for locals and to otherwise support local communities through charity and tax contributions.
          • Eccohawk, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3Clearly, you're the one that needs it spelled out. The cashiers that most people consider to be 'better' would not be ones to 'intentionally miss' items for the friend, cousin, nephew, etc. They would buy it for their friend/cousin/nephew at the offered employee discount, if allowed, or simply sell it to them for the proper price. And just because you may not know a cashier that honest, doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't around.
    • retsig, on 11/06/2007, -1/+7"Checking receipts in this store is completely useless."

      Why they do that anyways? Item check, doubt it. So far I have found that they either sign the receipt as soon as you hand it to them and let you go or read the receipt, without checking the items in your possession at all, sign it and let you go. Completely stupid.

      Eventually I got tired and started to deny giving my receipt and so far I haven't had any problems.

      • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My best guess is that it's to keep the cashiers honest by adding another set of eyes. Otherwise it wouldn't be very hard for a cashier to "forget" to scan an expensive item for friends that shop there.
  • rooftopsuicide, on 10/10/2007, -9/+246newegg.com, FTW!
    • snotrokit, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5because I can't digg ya twice.
    • irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Too bad that NewEgg's return policy isn't as convenient as, say, Fry's. Other than that and the fact that you can't always trust the product reviews, NewEgg is the place to go when you know what you want.
      • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I've found New Egg's product reviews to be especially helpful. One thing that they've done that Is really awesome is that they let the manufacturer rebut user comments. This only leads to good things, and when I see a manufacturer stepping in to help reviewers, it tells me that they're a stand-up company. Mushkin is one such company.

        I've found New Egg's return policy to be about as hassle free as it can be considering the shipping involved. You basically just ship it back. You don't have to go through some ***** asking you a million questions and giving you crap, just to get them to let you return something. They're probably the best online retailer I've ever dealt with.
      • Trevino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The one time I wanted to return something to newegg I called them up and they told me that after the shipping and restocking fee that I would only get a few bucks in refund. They just told me to keep the item and they would refund my money. That is amazing customer service IMO.
  • XzinWoW, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74I will never shop at Tiger Direct again. They pulled the same crap on me.

    The customer has every right to press criminal charges for unlawful restraint, and also file a civil suit for false imprisonment.

    I rarely suggest to people what stores they should and should not shop at but if you want my opinion, avoid Tiger Direct like the plague.

    Newegg is far better and they don't try to kidnap you after paying for something you just bought.
  • ripstuntz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+101I have a one step solution for you...

    http://www.newegg.com/
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm going to stop buying from TigerDirect. Newegg seems to have very awesome service and better pricing. I've spent a lot of money at TigerDirect also, but in support of that consumer, ***** TigerDirect.
  • dimes, on 10/10/2007, -58/+35You know everyone, including the person the article is about is running around talking about erosion of rights. They can all STFU. The guy went to a TD store, wheer you know they have a massive problem with theft, and all the poor rent-a-neck wanted was to see his receipt. Probably by order of management. He wasn't asking for a cavity search, just a let me see your receipt and probably followed by "let me look in your shopping bag". Good god, stop equating this to the second coming of the Facist State.

    Is it probable that the guard was a prick? Oh yeah, wouldn't you be a bit of a dick if your job was being a rent-a-neck at the exit of TD?

    Does it excuse the managers reaction? No. But come on, the "victim" was being a douche. Eveyones time wasted, including a PO who could at the very least be spending their time with a real crime.

    Lets get real, we are talking 5 seconds or less to flash a receipt....not "please step into the back room for a cavity search".

    Effing douche bags with too much time and no friends.

    dimes
    • tomakaze, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6No *****, that's just what I was thinking.
    • jlewicki, on 10/10/2007, -24/+6their store, their rules. sort of like a EULA
      • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6NO. My Country. Its Laws. Those rules.
        • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was you mr dictator
      • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nope... In a EULA they can argue that I agreed to the EULA when I click on the "I agree" button. The only way you could make this argument in this case would be if there were a BIG sign on the door and a button I had to push that says "I agree" before it lets me in.

        I've never seen such a button.

        And, BTW, I *don't* agree with the enforceability of EULA's "click through" agreement argument, either. But even if I did, as shown above, it doesn't apply here.
        • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1By entering the store you agree to follow their rules. Most EULA's say by using the product or entering the site you agree to it. You wouldn't go into someone elses house, then call the cops because you don't like their rules.
          • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2By entering the store you agree to nothing. If they have rules and you violate them, they can *ask* you to leave (and have you removed), but they certainly can't *prevent* you from leaving.
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26You're more than welcome to waive your right to not be involuntarily searched. I hope that works out for you.
      • dimes, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11What effing search?!??!?!!? The Guard wasn't trying to stick his finger in his arse??!!? He asked to see his receipt! Fsck, it was prolly still in his hand!

        Meanwhile, some min-wage guy is catching shiat, people behind him are getting held up getting on their way, a PO's time was wasted, AND WORST OF ALL he called 911 over this! I mean, come on, this is so much more important that the woman calling 911 cause her husband is having a stroke and needs help.

        • malkir, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8You seem to be missing the point. It was not the person that was detained that forced the police officer to show up, it was the security guard and staff that forced the police officer to show up. If they had not infringed upon this individuals rights to leave then none of that would have happened. In other words you're blaming the wrong person for wasting the officers time, and you're an idiot for doing so.
        • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2the store was with in its rights
          http://www.answers.com/topic/false-imprisonment-1 - stop talking out of your ass
          • acceleriter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Wrong. Failure to submit to a receipt check is not sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, so the "shopkeeper's privilege" does not apply.
        • geocator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You should stop talking out of your ass and read that article again. Shopkeepers privilege only applies when there is reasonable suspicion. Refusing to show your receipt does not qualify as reasonable suspicion.
        • victoryusername, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dimes, your preaching to the wrong crowd man. You touch a diggers rights, you get burried.
    • CaptRage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12While I agree that it may have been easier just to show a receipt and gotten it over with, but that is not the point. Just because the security guard was following his policy does not make the policy legal. If I had a store and made everyone say goodbye before they left and detained the person if they didn't does not make it legal. A person has a right not to be detained if they did not do anything wrong. Do you wanted to be treated as a criminal when you are in places like this, where you have to prove your innocence by showing a receipt. What happend to innocent until proven guilty? Where do you draw the line when it comes to this? Just because it only takes 2 seconds to show a receipt to leave it is ok, what if it took 10 min, would that be different?
      • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2people keep saying that - all the laws that I have found regarding this say that the store was well within its rights. the cop didn't arrest because there was no crime.
      • geocator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You have lost you mind. The cop admitted that they where not allowed to detain him. The cop did not arrest for his own reasons, likely because he thought it was all pretty petty. All crimes do not get prosecuted.
        • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1read the law. they are allowed to detain people during the course of an investigation and are immune from prosecution if they were wrong. http://www.answers.com/topic/false-imprisonment-1 if it was assault or false imprisonment there would have been people in jail. The cop certainly knows a lot more about the laws than this whiny bitch who set out to start a fight. thats all this is. I haven't lost my mind at all. I seem to be one of the minority of people on this thread with the intelligence to think about this reasonably. most of what is on the consumerist is made up BS anyway. I see no proof and I seriously doubt that he respectfully said no thanks to showing his receipt.
    • neoncricket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8The receipt and bag of items didn't belong to the security guard or the store, it belonged to the person who made the purchase. Should he have emptied his wallet, too, if the security guard wanted him to, if it only took five seconds? Shown him pictures of his kids, ID? It's not okay to detain someone for not relinquishing their personal property. The problem resides with the person on the power trip who wants to rifle through things someone legally paid for. It doesn't matter how short of a time it takes. And not kowtowing to an inappropriate power trip doesn't make someone a douche. It means they aren't being a doormat in life to other people's inappropriate behavior.

      And what's wrong with a store that can't keep track of their merchandise between the register and the door?
    • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It's not the time or bother that's the issue. The core issue here is that you have to prove you didn't steal anything. I resent the hell out of it. If you think I stole something, call the cops. Otherwise, stop making your loss control my problem.

      What makes it surreal is thinking that I managed to steal something between the checkout line and the door.

      I'm not surprised people resent this petty intrusion, but I'm always surprised by the apologists. They're probably the same people installing spyware on their kid's computers and advocating drug testing for school band. They'd fit right in with Antonin I-ain't-ever-seen-an-unreasonable-search Scalia. I think one day we may have to decide between living with douchebags like Scalia and living in a free country.
    • madkapitolist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The PO was educating two individuals of CIVIL rights something that people DIED for. I don't think the PO's time was wasted at all. I dont care how insignificant this situation seems, it all has to start from somewhere.
    • darkjedi26, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I live about 10 minutes from this store and I seriously doubt the Naperville police have much of anything better to do. If anything, this guy probably forced the PO to leave his speed trap for about 20 minutes, which I’m all for.
  • yehudaj, on 10/10/2007, -46/+9IMHO he deserved what he got DONT BE A douche-bag what exactly were you hiding? or better yet what drugs are you on that you felt compelled to be a total JERK!!!!!
    • ChiSoxFan77, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14He purchased items from the store and committed no crime. He doesn't want to be treated like a criminal. You are the reason our rights have been constantly eroded since 9/11 and nobody has spoken up or fought it. You have a right to privacy and are the douche bag who doesn't deserve it because you're so willing to give it up for no reason. Where does it end? They have NO legal right to search you or your bag unless they have EVIDENCE that you committed a crime. What's so hard to understand that what TD did was unlawful. What if a cop came to my door and wanted to search your place with no just cause? Would that be okay too and I'd be a douchebag because I didn't want him in my place and must be "hiding something"??? You and your attitudes are a big part of the problem in this country and don't deserve the freedoms you apparently take for granted. You won't be taking them for granted long though because they have been consistently chipped away the last few years with more to come because puds like you are so willing to bend over and take it.
      • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4this has nothing to do with 9/11 STFU - its a shoplifting prevention tool. i bet he is the only one that did that all month at that store. when I go to frys I know thats coming and I don't act like a douche bag and throw a fit.
        • withoutamartyr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If a police officer requested to search your house, and you refuse, is that reason enough to assume you're growing pot or hiding a dead body? After all, it's just a crime-prevention tool.
    • Punisher2K, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13So the police should be able to search your house right now since you don't have anything to hide right?
  • diggtochina, on 10/10/2007, -64/+14WHAT A ***** *****. JUST SHOW YOUR DAMN RECEIPT YA ***** ASS. SERIOUSLY, IF THE COP DIDN'T ARREST THE GUYS, THEN YOU ARE JUST BEING A PUSSY. THIS IS JUST LIKE THE LADY WHO'S COFFEE WAS TOO HOT. JUST TRYING TO MAKE A BUCK
    • tinhat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Her coffee was not just "too hot". It was at an unsafe temperature even after McDs had been sited several times in the past for keeping it's coffee at a too-high-to-be-safe temperature. People should really look up this case before using as an example for tort reform, stupidity, etc...

      • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I love slapping ignorant people down when they cite this case. This lady was well within her rights to sue, and I'm glad she got paid. I agree that it sounds absurd on the surface, but when you actually read what happened it's a no-brainer that McD's was wrong.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too hot? The max temperature for coffee is 100 C, and it probably wasn't that hot; it's not like this was molten lead. And either way, she got WAY too much money.
        • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So, how much would you want if you got third degree burns all over your nutsack? I'm guessing you'd want as much as you could possibly get, especially when the guilty company involved tried to make you look like an ignorant ***** and made a public mockery of you.
      • TheDragonTony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Screw that, it was her fault, she spilled the coffee that she knew was hot. She placed the coffee in her lap and spilled it on herself as she was attempting to remove the lid. She was 81 years old, 81 is old enough to know better than to put a cup of extremely hot coffee between your legs. Also I know for a fact that you can feel that coffee is hot even in those wonderful insulated cups (were they still styrofoam in 1994?) so she had to know it was hot (even if she didn't read the cup which I believe even then said Caution:Hot). While McDonald's is not completely without blame, and they should have just settled with her, it was still her fault, and the ruling was stupid.

        But I agree that diggtochina's comment was stupid also, and diggtochina there is no need to yell.
    • danlas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Interestingly, the coffee lady was in a car with bucket seats when the coffee spilled and had serious burns all over her lower body.
    • jmhyer51, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm blocking you just like I'm blocking Tigewr Direct.
    • ChiSoxFan77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Please see reply above to the other pud yehudai you moron. They had NO right to stop him without any evidence of a crime.
    • CaptRage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The guy is not trying to make a buck, he just wants a policy changed, and the only way to make policies change is by making the company have to pay for not doing it.
    • Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Is it just me or does it seem that the venn intersection of fascist assholes and idiots who always use capslock is getting larger?
    • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wait, how do you block people again?
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digg sure is full of freedom hating douchebags, huh... -_-
  • oddmanout, on 10/10/2007, -31/+11sounds like the security guard was being a douchebag but i don't understand why the customer was so surprised by this. If you're acting suspicious, don't be surprised when people are suspicious of you.
    • MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33Acting suspicious by refusing an illegal search?
    • thugok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31So now standing up for your rights is suspicious behavior?
      • nene7070, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2no being a dickwad about showing a damn receipt is suspicious. there are other ways to stand up for your rights.
        • MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16"No Thanks" is being a dickwad? The first person to be a dickwad was the security guard who illegally detained her.
    • oddmanout, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1think of it this way... guy is swerving, cop pulls him over, guy refuses to take Breathalyzer or any sobriety test.. what are you going to think? why else would he not want to take it?

      same with this situation.. i can understand at a grocery store or pharmacy, thats different, but this is electronics.

      i'm not saying the security guards actions were right, i'm saying i don't blame him for being suspicious. How many people go around defying security guards just because its their right to do so? and if you're going to go against the grain like that, expect some sort of hassle and don't try to sue every jackass that over-steps his bounds.
      • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are very very ignorant. In addition, your argument is a red herring.
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"why else would he not want to take it?"

        Possibly because they measure alcohol in the breath and not in the blood. Perhaps he had a single shot of vodka and it went down the wrong pipe into his lungs. Oops. Not likely? Certainly. Not possible? I don't think so.
  • vaga222, on 10/10/2007, -49/+15By entering the store you agreed to obey their rules. If you didn't want to show your receipt then you didn't have to, they should have refunded you your good and you could have left the store without anything. You don't have any 'right' not to be searched in a private business. Yes the guard should not have been so harsh but you broke store rules.

    It's people like you who abuse the word 'right' and apply it to situations like this that destroy the whole point in people having 'right' in the first place. Implying that you have the right not to be searched in this case is an assumption of a positive right (someone has to do something for you) which are fallacious rights. If the guard was from target and you were outside the store then yes it would be a violation.
    • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35>>>"By entering the store you agreed to obey their rules."

      False. You fail at life.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I'll give you a hint: false arrest.
    • mescad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9What if the store has a rule that you have to pay $500 to exit, even if you didn't purchase anything? Not every store has the same rule, and if they aren't posted on the outside of the building, how is someone to even know what rules that particular store has prior to entering?

      The law says that you can't detain someone like that, which the cop in the story confirmed. The store rules are not laws.
    • CobaltBlue, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The rule in my pawnshop has to do with spending some time in the basement with my cousin Zed and the Gimp. Don't even thing about breaking my store rules.
    • tinhat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8When entering a store, I do agree to obey some rules. Rules such as not flipping over end-caps, not peeing on the carpets, and not opening merchandise and smashing it. I do not however, have any legal compulsion to submit to a search of any kind by anyone other than a law enforcement officer. I have paid for the merchandise and it is now legally my property. You have no business at all to look in them if I don't want you to.

      Call the police if you have hard evidence of shop lifting, otherwise you are just fishing with no basis in fact.
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And you don't have to submit to a search by a police officer unless that officer has reasonable cause to search you. Unfortunately, your refusing to allow a search is allowed to be construed as reasonable cause. The whole "you must have something to hide" thing.
        • JacksonBlack, on 11/06/2007, -1/+0"Unfortunately, your refusing to allow a search is allowed to be construed as reasonable cause. The whole "you must have something to hide" thing."

          What?
        • BelXul, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Actually, it makes perfect sense. Police routinely (in my area, at least) would stop people and demand to search their belongings, no reason is given as to why. When asked why, they fall upon the excuse that they have reasons of suspicion, but never specify a suspicion of what. When people refuse, they then declare that the 'suspect' is hiding something and thus invoke reasonable cause to search their belongings.
    • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can't create a 'rule' or binding agreement that waives a constitutional right. It's not legal, and it's not binding.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The stores "rules" cannot conflict with the law. You cannot illegally detain, search, etc.
  • AoSDFA, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11Most likely outcome: States will change their shoplifting laws to allow receipt checks. No one will ever pay to take it to the State or US Supreme Court.
    • boredsam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10More likely outcome: Once this story is off the front page no one will remember it and we will go on being consumerist sheep. The Supreme Court has more important things to do, like electing presidents.