digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at consumerist.com

Unlawfully Detained At Home Depot For Not Showing Receipt

consumerist.com — In addition to poor customer service and an inadequately maintained and stocked store, Matt says he was illegally detained by the Metropolitan Police and forced to return to the store to show his receipt to a Home Depot employee.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • darkjedi26, on 02/28/2008, -13/+251Who needs constitutional rights when Home Depot's bottom line needs to be protected...
    • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -72/+10Constitutional Rights? Exactly how hard is it to show ones receipt to the poor minimum wage slave?

      Are you implying that Home Depot should allow their stores to be looted in order to avoid inconveniencing some poor whine-ass for 5 seconds?

      • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -4/+38He's implying that our constitutional rights, and the premise of innocent until proven guilty, are not to be used as a solution to their incompetent handling of their inventory control problem.

        • wastelander, on 02/28/2008, -25/+5Personally I would rather be inconvenienced by showing a receipt than pay more for my merchandise in order to subsidize shoplifters.
          • thugok, on 02/28/2008, -2/+19In case you aren't aware, the majority of retail theft occurs from the employees that work there, not the paying customers.
          • douggmc, on 02/28/2008, -2/+43One time .. when I was shopping at Home Depot .. I wanted an 8' x 4' sheet of 3/4" plywood really bad .. but didn't have any money. So I slipped it under my shirt ... all nonchalantly and *****. Then while walking out the store, the security dude asked me for my receipt. I punched him in the ear. Now I have a bitchin' new sheet of plywood in my bedroom.
          • xadhominemx, on 02/29/2008, -5/+1@thugok
            Oh, I guess that means that increased theft by customers could never lead to higher prices. /sarcasm
          • madcat033, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7It doesn't matter what the ***** you "personally" prefer. It's illegal for them to detain you, bottom line.
          • tamuengineer, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1This is ignorant, if you dont want to show your receipt then DONT SHOP THERE! it is that simple! no constitutional rights ***** necessary!
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/28/2008, -5/+24Are you implying they should be allowed to accuse all their customers of being criminals until they prove otherwise without any evidence to suggest they are, in fact, guilty of something? ANYthing?
        • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -31/+4There is no accusation, they're simply verifying the purchase.
          • acdcfanbill, on 02/28/2008, -0/+24Then verify my purchase when I hand over the money. After that, the items are mine, and you can be damned if you are rude about asking to see them.
          • lex0nyc, on 02/28/2008, -1/+20That's what a ***** cash register is for.
          • haydesigner, on 02/28/2008, -1/+13Then why shouldn't they be able to:

            - verify it immediately after I pay for it? ("can I see the receipt I just gave you, sir?")
            - verify it immediately after it is put in the bag? ("Can I see the receipt for what was just put in the bag, sir?")
            - verify it when I start walking towards the door ("I see you are thinking of leaving our store. Can I see your receipt, sir?")
            - verify it when I walk through the door ("You are leaving our store. Can I see your receipt, sir?")
            - verify it just after I pass through the door? ("I see you have left our store. Can I see your receipt, sir?")
            - verify it when I start walking towards my car? ("I see you are thinking of leaving our property. Can I see your receipt, sir?")
            - verify it when I am opening my car door? ("Now I know you are thinking of leaving our property. Can I see your receipt, sir?")
            - have a toll booth gate, complete with spikes, to stop you from getting out of the parking lot? ("Before you leave today, can I see your receipt, sir?")

            Yeah! I like @unreg's way of thinking!!!
          • MrB398, on 02/29/2008, -11/+1Wow, a majorty of the people on Digg appear to be stuck up assholes. If I my job was to stand by the entrace checking the recipts of larger more expensive items for $5/hr and one of you assholes refused to perform a simple legitimate request to ensure similar assholes dont walk out with a cartload of merchendise and tried to leave like a stuck up snob, I would probably punch you in the face
          • haydesigner, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4@MrB398: "I would probably punch you in the face"

            And then, MrB398 (great name, btw), you'd be going to jail.
            And good luck getting a good lawyer at those wages.
      • carboncopy77, on 02/28/2008, -3/+8Quote from the article in mention: "my father had the receipt and already left the immediate area"
        • fredkreuger, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8That was on a previous occasion.
      • brstilson, on 02/28/2008, -3/+20It's the principle of the matter. Stores shouldn't treat their customers like criminals. The government can't search you without probable cause, so Home Depot shouldn't, either. No store has any legal basis for making you show your receipt. The second you exchange money for your items, those items become yours. It doesn't matter if you're still in the store, your purchase is your property.

        Some people see the receipt checks as an accusation of theft and take offense to it.
        • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -22/+3Some people have awful thin skin.
        • PleaseJustDie, on 02/28/2008, -26/+3Every store has the right to refuse service to anyone, if you don't want to follow their rules especially for something as stupidly simple as showing a receipt when you leave the store, then you shouldn't shop there.
          • mescad, on 02/28/2008, -2/+25They are certainly free to deny future entry to those customers not willing to show a receipt. However, they have no right to deny anyone from leaving the store, store policy or not.
          • Amablue, on 02/28/2008, -1/+16Once you've bought the merchandise it's yours. You've already done your business there. At this point the only thing they can do is kick you out of the store. They do not have the right to go through my stuff (the key here being that the stuff I bought is my stuff now).
          • belly917, on 02/28/2008, -2/+13what if the store asked for fingerprints as you were leaving? Where does the erosion of rights end. Why should stores have the ability to create unposted rules at leisure?

            If the rules about submitting a receipt were clearly posted at the entrance, or part of a membership agreement like sam's club; then the store would have been warranted in it's request. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those were the case.
          • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -12/+0Sure. But what about the unpurchased mechandise?

            They don't go through your stuff, they simply look at the reciept, give your cart a cursory glance and tell you to have a nice day.

            Sometimes they get out their little sharpie and mark the receipt to prevent those who would attempt to reuse it in an unlawful manner.

          • tamuengineer, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1When you enter the store everyone knows you are going to be required to show a receipt therefore you are agreeing to make your purchase on their terms. This is not "erosion of rights" they are not searching your person, car, home etc. Its just a damn receipt and they only want to look in the bag. What else could possibly be in the bag? Assuming you just purchased the items, you just showed each one to the cashier moments earlier and if there is something else in there by the time you reach the door then you are the thief they are looking for.
      • ratsg, on 02/28/2008, -2/+12unreg, I can't decide if you are really that stupid, or just a troll.
        • haydesigner, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2stoopid.
        • Nerys, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7Posted Policies are just that POLICIES and are unenforceable by law. MEMBERSHIP agreements are also UNENFORCEABLE by law though conditons in the agreement can cause canceling of your membership if you disagree with it. IE they still can not use the law to force you to show a reciept the most they can do is cancel your membership. Period.

          NOW there is one exception. Anything "NOT" in a bag ie there is no obvious way to tell if you purchased such exposed items or not Thats why I ask for "paid" stickers for such items whenever possible.

          Even then if you literally JUST came from a register having paid for these items I still do not recognize ANY right to ask for my reciept exposed items or not.

          That reciept is my property. That merchandise is my property. FORCING me to show said reciept is an unwarrented search and seizure and and unlawful detainment.

          If you do not have problem with this you are either simply UNAWARE of its full implications or are literally a moron. I choose for now to simply assume your unaware of the full implications.

          It does not matter how PETTY the search is. A search is a Search. The law is pretty clear. If you literally did not actually SEE me via your eyeballs or video camera TAKE something and not put it back or pay for it you have NO legal right to detain me. Period. End of Discussion.

          He was a lot nicer than me. I would have told that officer over my dead body am I showing this person my reciept and may have even been tempted to EAT IT on the spot so they could not FORCE me to show it (I would only do this if I paid via credit card in case things got bad :-)

          I would then tell the officer I can not leave because you have told me I am being detained so Proceed with your procedures and get a supervisor here right now but your NOT getting that reciept. Not negotiable. Period.

          Its a matter of principle folks. its the foundation or liberty. IT ALWAYS STARTS SMALL FOLKS !!! thats why our our basic rights are written as ABSOLUTES. SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Shall NOT be infringed.

          Not may sometimes if just cause. Because they know YOU will not be the one who DEFINES just cause.
          • tamuengineer, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1You ask for "paid" stickers? Why the hell is it such a big deal? There are no secrets in my shopping bags, i just showed them all to the cashier! If they catch one thief by having a look at receipts at the door then I feel that my inconvenience of having to show the receipt is justified. It takes all of a few SECONDS to show it on your way out. If you are that insecure that you cannot do that, well I suggest you not shop at these businesses, its really that simple.
        • MrB398, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2you sir, are an ignorant piece of garbage. When I read the article and all these replies on DIGG, all i see are a bunch of people who think thier better than people with ***** jobs.
    • allahuakbar, on 02/28/2008, -62/+10What the ***** - this guy is on their private property leaving with their property. It's completely reasonable to want to make sure he actually purchased it (ergo constitutional). Without this kind of policy people would be stealing from them left and right. "But it's not constitutional to request a receipt from me!" Home Depot should exercise one of their constitutional rights and refuse service to fetid douchebags like this guy.
      • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -3/+50If I paid for it, it is MY property. If they want to see it OR a receipt they can god damn well ask politely and understand that "no" is a VALID ANSWER.
        • ontain, on 02/28/2008, -29/+7but how do they know you paid for it?
          • Jlaugh, on 02/28/2008, -1/+24Because they went through a cash register.
          • belly917, on 02/28/2008, -0/+16they could review their security tapes, goto the register you used and check their copies of the receipts. or simply ask a teller.

            Just because they haven't kept a constant eye on you, doesn't mean you're a thief.

            How would they know you paid for something if you walked in with a previously purchased item without a receipt?

          • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -16/+0How do we verify that. With a reciept.

            There, ran rings around you logically.
          • nealyng, on 02/28/2008, -2/+11That is not my concern. I honestly don't give a ***** if they think i paid for it or not. If they think i am shoplifting, they can review their tapes or watch me on camera.
          • actorboy, on 02/28/2008, -9/+1@ belly917

            "Excuse me, sir. We hate to inconvenience you or make you feel untrustworthy by asking to see your receipt. Could you please wait here while we review our security tapes and go to the register you used to check their copy of your receipt?"

          • emjaymj, on 02/29/2008, -2/+10@actorboy

            Fortunately, the burden of proof in modern society is on the accuser, not the accused. When the police don't even have the right to search me without probable cause, some minimum wage worker CERTAINLY DOESN'T. Just like police officers can't randomly search and detain people just because a small percentage of people happen to be carrying drugs and weapons, Joe Mullet working at Home Depot has no right to search and detain people just because shoplifting is an unfortunate reality. That's THEIR problem as a business, not mine.

            And while I personally avoid the hassle by just showing my receipt to the illiterate hick who probably doesn't even know what constitutional rights are, it's an absolute outrage that these companies think they have the right to search or detain you. What's even more sickening is that the line between public and corporate interest is apparently being blurred more and more every day and this police officer felt it was his job to enforce an unlawful store policy.
        • Zipko, on 02/28/2008, -0/+20The same way they know I haven't paid for it. Burden of proof in this case isn't on the customer in the form of showing a recipt at the door. It's on the store to catch you stealing in the first place. If they see you take an item off the shelf and walk out without going through a register then they've got a case, but a policy to do random bag checks isn't enforcable.
      • twitchr, on 02/28/2008, -2/+28Actually, you are wrong. it is our right to refuse unnecessary search and seizure. once you pay for the product. it's yours, not the stores. UNLESS they see you stealing or have you on video doing so, you are well within your rights to refuse search. google it. people have won lawsuits on this very incident.
      • hextic, on 02/28/2008, -2/+22Excuse me sir, but the moment you hand over your money, the property is your own, and it is no different than if you had walked in the store and immediately left. Hey, if you want, you can come to my house, but you'll have to strip down and give a search, or I'll call the cops and have you charged with trespassing. Not fair? Not legal? I have NO reason whatsoever to actually believe you are a thief? That's what your logic implies. Good day sir, you lose.
        • DLHOUOKUSA, on 02/28/2008, -7/+2Hextic, you are a genius. Next time some hot girls come over and don't put out, I might try calling the police and have them striped search just in case they are attempting to steal something. You know based on responses in here they might just submit to it like nice little sheep. Papers please.
          • TheMidnight, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6You must be a virgin.
          • EvilBadger, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2You might try not being the creepy stalker, try to hard, guy and maybe they would not want to leave. Or maybe think of them as women and not free hookers, which apparently is your mindset from the statement above.
          • haydesigner, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Why is it was someone stubborn and close-minded definitively loses an argument, they seem to resort to the "sheep/sheeple" response? As if that somehow makes them right?
          • DLHOUOKUSA, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Who lost what argument Haydesigner? That was my first post and I was being sarcastic.I am a married man TheMidnight-Virgin. According to my countries constitution, I am protected from unreasonable searches. So the store can go to hell. My family has fought and died in wars so that I wouldn't have to show my papers so please think before you post.
      • allahuakbar, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Wow dugg down for displaying logic - everyone's blindingly replying "it's just not right!" or something like that.
    • humperdeath, on 02/28/2008, -9/+13Next thing Home Depot is going to want to see my credit card before letting me walk out with some stuff. I tell you, there are some nosy clerks at these stores.
      /of course, that is sarcasm.
      • PopcornDave, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1And that's assuming you can actually *find* a clerk there. All the Home Depot's I've been to lately are 99% self checkout with 45% working at any one time.
    • FreddieD, on 02/28/2008, -0/+15Never trust a company whose CEO is named "Lil' Frankie"...
    • licoricewhip, on 02/28/2008, -6/+510 to 1 says that Home Depot will have a constructive response.
    • Ajajadude, on 02/28/2008, -18/+29I know it's the cool thing to do to overreact to situations like this and act like this country is worse than China or Somalia, but here goes:

      In general, I don't see the problem with showing my receipt. Why? Because having worked in retail throughout college, I can tell you theft, and shrink in general, plays a decent-sized part in the price of products (how large of an impact theft makes depends on the size of the store/chain, amount of theft, etc). Therefore, I look at showing my receipt as being something that's in my best interest: stores that have active measures to deter theft tend to have less theft.
      I work at a drug store and the company's policy is that we can ask people to stop so we can check their receipt if the alarm goes off, but we can't force them to. The result? Our store has a high theft rate because everyone in town knows we do nothing about people who steal (in most cases). Unless we have footage of the person taking something and walking out, we can't do a thing.
      I don't see this as an assault against my Constitutional, or even basic human, rights. It's not unreasonable to show my receipt. Most places I go to tend not to ask to see my receipt. That is, unless I'm in a crime-prone area. I can buy something at Best Buy in Thousand Oaks, CA (an affluent area), but drive 15 miles to Oxnard, CA (a higher crime area) and have to show my receipt upon leaving.
      Boo hoo, I took two seconds to show my receipt. Not my ID or my SS# or hand over a DNA sample. It avoids situations like this where ***** gets out of hand and I'm not giving anything up by complying. A company's bottom line affects MY bottom line. It also affects the workers there. High shrink has to be made up somewhere, and odds are it's going to be in item prices and employee wages.
      I know, this is an unpopular way of looking at showing your receipt. Most common sense reasoning is unpopular amongst the masses.
      • diggduggDOOM, on 02/28/2008, -7/+14And how much overhead is that extra receipt-checking employee adding?
        • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -19/+4There's always somebody with the stupid counter-point.
        • ngmcs8203, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5At roughly $12-15/hr, not that much. They'd probably be doing something else, just as constructive anyway.
          • Nerys, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Assuming no Benefits or 401k just under $78,000 per Exit Per Store Per Year. Note clearly this does not go all to one person but most Depots are open 7am to 10pm do the math (add 20% since many of the FICA and Medicaid Taxes have to be MATCHED by the Employer.) So Does anyone know what the company wide yearly shrinkage is ? assuming 2 Exits as with most Home Depots and again assuming NO benefits or 401k etc.. thats almost 160,000 PER store per year. Thats 3.2 MILLION assuming they have 200 stores.
        • likeyehokwhatev, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7Probably not as much as what they'd lose from theft?
        • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2That's a valid point. But, odds are, it prevents more theft than it costs to have people standing up there. And while I don't have anything to back this up, I'm sure stores have ways of keeping the price of the commercial bouncer down: part-timers at low wages and crap like that.
      • playaj20008, on 02/28/2008, -1/+15Well as the story says, the man no longer had his receipt because it was with his father who had left. No law requires me to even keep my receipt, so what if I throw it in the trash can next to the check out line? Am I to be detained if I can't produce it? Do I need a receipt to legally own the items I've bought? I don't think so...
        • Balloondoggies, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5The story does state that, but if you read the police report at the bottom of the story it doesn't mention anything about his father. And in the police report version, he shows his receipt about 5 secs after the employee asks him. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just providing the full picture that there are 2 different versions of the story on the same webpage.
      • diggduggjoe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+11The reason I hate the receipt shakedown is that there is a very small opportunity to steal between the cashiers and the doors. If, something is hidden on the cart, that should be dealt with at the cashier, not with some friggin "everybody is a perp" dragnet at the front door.
        • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Assuming they even went through the cash register at all. Things can get pretty chaotic in big stores like Home Depot at peak times, it would be pretty easy for someone to walk on past the registers and out the door.
      • darkjedi26, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9While you may not see it as an affront to your rights, some people do. That's the key. The store has every right to ask to see it, but no right to force you. And if you think that if a store instituted a receipt checking policy that resulted in lower theft/shrink, they would pass the savings on to the customer, then you are a fool. That money would go right to the bottom line.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -3/+6Well the reason for a reciept check is actually to catch stealing cashiers. SUCH AS a cashier ringing up the wrong price OR a cash year "not" ringing up something for a friend etc.. ITs not effective anymore than the sensormatic things are. IE the only way to be effective would be to literally count EVERYTHING you bought and count the number of lines on the reciept. BUT the idea is the same as sensormatic IE the practice is a deterrent. The cashiers know its happening and can SEE the checks happen. ITs designed to deter them from trying this form of employee theft.

          My problem is its NOT MY PROBLEM. its not MY JOB to secure your cashiers. Yes cashier theft is a valid problem but you may NOT violate MY RIGHTS in order to secure YOUR cashiers. Find another way unless your willing to PAY ME to perform these services for you.

          Its a violation of my rights and its a perceived insult to my integrity. Regardless of your reasons for doing it the Perception that can NOT be ignored is that we think your a thief so we are going to check you. I will not tolerate this activity. I will not tolerate the infringement of my rights nor will I tolerate the insinuation intended or not that I am a criminal. Its the same reason I will not give a fingerprint at a bank. Criminals give fingerprints.
        • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2What rights, though? As I see it, it's part of doing business with that particular store. If I don't like it, I can shop elsewhere. If it's such a huge problem, get large numbers of people who feel like you to petition those stores. The fact of the matter is, as long as there is theft, there will be measures to try and prevent it. Deal with that or choose the alternatives: shop online or at "mom n' pop" shops.
      • RDinSB, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Besides - I believe that by far the losses from thievery at any store is something like 50% internal employee and 30% from external shoplifting. Here are some stats: Employee Theft 48.5% for a total loss of $15.1 billion .. Shoplifting 31.7% for a loss of $9.7 billion and Administrative Error 15.3% for a loss of $4.8 billion and finally Vendor Fraud 5.4% for a loss of $1.7 billion
        Total Inventory Shrinkage $31.3 billion Source: http://retailindustry.about.com/od/statistics_loss ...

        So - that means that you should worry a lot more about the people in the stock room than hassling your customers.
        • JStraum, on 02/29/2008, -1/+331.7% can be overlooked? Choosing to be afraid of "hassling customers?" You're sure to never get that management spot are you?
          • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2I do not care if 100% came from customers NO process you need to run is permitted to violate my rights. Period. End of Discussion. DO NOT pass GO. This is NOT negotiable If you do not like it your ONLY option is to NOT DO BUSINESS IN MY GOD DAMNED COUNTRY. Are we clear on this?
          • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Nerys: You've never worked in retail, have you? If you ever spent more than a couple of months in a retail store, you'd know what the ***** you were talking about.
    • j0keR, on 02/28/2008, -9/+7Sorry to inform you, but the constitution is a document meant to restrict the government's power, and contains nothing that "citizens" have to abide by.
      Meaning that while I'm supposed to have the freedom of speech on public property (this has been undermined by "free speech zones"), I do not have the freedom of speech to stand on your front lawn at 3:00 in the morning with a loudspeaker.

      I don't think stores are morally in the right for demanding to be able to search customers when they don't necessarily make it clear to the shopper that this is their policy upon entering the store.
      • elrac, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7And what is your response when a representative of the government, a police officer, helps to enforce this policy?
      • lex0nyc, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3If thay made that sort of policy clear, I wouldn't enter the store.
      • darkjedi26, on 02/28/2008, -4/+4Umm, I think your a bit wrong here. The 4th Amendment:
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Nowhere does it say that it only pertains to the Government. That applies to everyone. If i walked up to you and started going through your pockets, you could press charges against me for violating your 4th amendment rights.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -4/+2Damned right. The Constitution is NOT limited to government. Period. If it were limited to government it would have ZERO power or purpose at all. As bush said it would Literally be just a god damned piece of paper if that were the case since all the government would have to do to infringe your rights is ask a private entity to do it for them (IN FACT they regularly do just this to "get around" some of the laws in place to protect us!)

          The only thing you are COMPELLED to comply with is United States LAWS. Policies are not laws. Policies are purely optional and voluntary.
        • Speed, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2From Wikipedia (since I'm too lazy to read 1700s English and ifnd the exact words):
          "The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments were adopted between 1789 and 1791, and all relate to limiting the power of the federal government" (notice the part where it says FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)
        • Speed, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Also, I wouldn't press charges for violating my civil liberties, I'd file charges against you for pick pocketing and possibly assault. Or I'd just break your ***** nose for putting your hands anywhere near my pockets. Either way, different from asking for a receipt.
        • crzdmn, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1@Speed

          Then he gets to file charges for assault as well, you can claim self defense but you apparently haven't heard of people being charged for "excessive use of force" when defending themselves.

          Also, wikipedia is not a trusted source for any information. Due to it being user generated it's good for guidelines and starting points but nothing more than that.

          • Speed, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1The article itself was sourced, but I'm not going to do an insane amount of research just to prove a diggtard wrong. I have work, a social life and university to stay on top of. Like I said, I'm too lazy to read the exact constitution (especially since it doesn't apply to me).
      • Elliuotatar, on 02/28/2008, -3/+8So because you're on my property I can shoot you dead because it's my property and I make the rules? Is that what you're saying?

        Home depot has no right to ask to see your recepit after you have paid for, and therefore own an item.

        They can make the rules you have to follow when you are in their store, yes, but if you don't agree to follow those rules the only thing they can do is ask you to leave, or prohibit you from entering in the first place. They CANNOT _prevent_ you from leaving when you refuse to follow their rules. And they cannot take back an item they have already sold to you.

        Home Depot's only recourse here is to make up a policy which says that if you refuse to show your receipt then you will be barred from the premises in the future, and they can then get you on trespassing if you return. But they're not gonna do that, as it would be terrible for PR.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I know this is a technicality but its SO critical as I see it abused in law all the time. Free Speech means they can ASK you anything they want. Free Speech applies to home depot employees as much as it does there customers. The issue is not asking its COMPELLING. IE effectively coercing you against you will knowingly or not that is the problem.
        • Speed, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"So because you're on my property I can shoot you dead because it's my property and I make the rules? Is that what you're saying?"
          To be fair, that's what Digg was arguing when that Texan dude shot the guy robbing his neighbors house.
        • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Depending on your state's laws, yeah, you can shoot someone on your property who doesn't have permission to be there.
      • cryptoki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3wonder what happened to his receipt.
    • PhantomRogue, on 02/28/2008, -0/+14As much as I dislike Best Buy's policies, theirs is 100x better than Home Depot and Sam's Club. The guy sits at the Door, and just waits for the Alarm, and if he cares, he looks at the receipts. He doesn't check everyones receipt, just sits there, and if the alarm goes off, does something. Thats the way it should be, they shouldn't be checking my receipt.
      Besides, its not like the idiot checker actually reads the 2 foot long receipt with 50 items on it, and goes and checks my ***** cart for each item.
      • ngmcs8203, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7"Besides, its not like the idiot checker actually reads the 2 foot long receipt with 50 items on it, and goes and checks my ***** cart for each item."
        You're right. This isn't Costco.
        • Ajajadude, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Or Wal-Mart. Do you think those little old ladies can actually read the receipt?
    • Escamotage, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9Technically, you're not obligated to show your receipt to anyone...
      ...unless you're making a return.
      • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -17/+2Can you cite statue on that?

        Thought not.
        • TheMidnight, on 02/28/2008, -3/+11I don't cite statues, I usually poo on them, like I did on your comment.

          --the pigeon
          • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Your not required to therefore there is NO STATUTE to quote you ninny. There would only be a statue if your REQUIRED to do so. SO YOU quote me the statue that says I must! I thought not. Your not even required to show a receipt to make a return (though at the same time the retailer is not obligated to ACCEPT your return either)
          • tamuengineer, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1So therefore it is required?
        • javaroast, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Since you can't cite a statute that says I am obligated... because it doesn't exist, I'll cite Keith Morris of the Circle Jerks:

          wake up tomorrow,do it again
          yes sir,yes ma'am
          no sir,no ma'am
          get so fed up
          with your ***** scams

          You seem to be very bothered by this so show your receipt. As for myself I save the time and walk right on by. They got not right, they got no reason.
    • dk911, on 02/28/2008, -15/+8Okay, here goes (since this is repeated over and over, ad infinitum...)
      "The 4th amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure (however) it generally does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations."
      As you can see from the amendment itself, it does NOT protect you from being searched by Home Depot. It is a private organization, and thusly does not violate the 4th amendment. By refusing to show the employee the receipt, you give the police reasonable cause (what they need under the 4th amendment) by acting a little sketchy. They didn't ask to look in the bag -- they wanted to see your receipt. Don't give me that stupid line about "eroding your rights little by little" because your rights aren't being violated... They are being upheld, and you assisted in it.

      End of story. Now dig me down because I'm not one of the Digg sheeple.
      • raynar, on 02/28/2008, -9/+6but...but the digg lawyers say you're wrong, so i have to go with them. After all, smelling like cheese in your room gives you a law degree on digg.
      • playaj20008, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5Wrong? Maybe the 4th amendment isn't the protector, but unless your the government (in which case the constitution counts), you're not aloud to go about searching anyone you wish. I don't have the right to imprison visitors to my house because I suspect they took something and they refuse to show me their pockets.
      • darkjedi26, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8The 4th Amendment:
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Tell me where in there is says it applies only to the government. I'm digging you down because you are wrong, not because I'm a sheeple. A sheeple would be the people who don't care about the erosion of their rights because they don't' want to be ***** inconvenienced.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Here here I was going to do the same thing and quote it. I see NO wording in there that limits this to ANY on specific entity. The constitution would be rendered NEUTERED if it were limited to government since all they would have to do is OUTSOURCE there violation to private entities. you FAIL dk911
    • jspegele, on 02/28/2008, -0/+17I used to work as a cashier at Home Depot in the summer when I was home from college. Every year I had to retake the orientation and every year they told us that we don't have the right to look in anyone's bag who didn't want us to, we don't have the right to detain anyone and we would be fired on the spot if we tried to detain or chase after anyone.
    • Huangism, on 02/28/2008, -12/+5well if he had just showed his receipt instead of acting like an ***** he would saved himself a lot of trouble. sure you can exercise your rights, but c'mon he's doing it jsut to be an ***** and i have no respect for that
      • midhqel, on 02/28/2008, -7/+3You are a stupid American.
        • JStraum, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2You are a whiney American with no common courtesy...
      • DLHOUOKUSA, on 02/28/2008, -2/+9Yeah it is easier to give up rights then to protect them. However; we must protect our rights because once lost, blood is often required to regain them.
      • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Well if he had simply not asked to see the reciept a lot of trouble would have be saved. Sure there trying to stop cashier stealing but c'mon there just to cheap to do it themselves and instead want to subject me to there abuse. I have no respect for that.

        Amazing how CIRCULAR that is ehh?
    • canUdi9it, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3I like to call 'em 'Home Despot'.
    • VegaObscura3, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I'm neutral on this conversation, but just if anyone cares, I was sitting on a bench in Wal-Mart near the shoe department. Wal-Mart's policy is to check your receipt if you have anything that isn't in a bag. I saw a guy walk up with an empty walmart bag in his hand. The guy looked homeless, he had the typical long unkept beard, his jeans had some really big holes in them (the right leg of the jeans was almost gone) and a typical dirty shirt. He picked up a pair of shoes he liked, tried them on, then put them back in their box and put them in the bag. I might be a little biased because of how he looked, but I have a strong feeling (since he put them into the walmart bag instead of carrying them or putting them into a cart) he was going to walk away without paying for them. I don't know if anyone cares or not, I just thought I'd share it.
    • JStraum, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I hope this goes all the way to the supreme court so once and for all you whiney bitches will have to shut the ***** up about these brutal and supposed "rights violations"....y'all are a bunch of pansies...
    • xlar54, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Start from the bottom... Best Buy detains a *COP* because he refused to show them a receipt... good reading...

      http://www.die.net/musings/bestbuy/epilogue.html
    • speedbmp, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  • chicofaraby, on 02/28/2008, -17/+194I never show my receipt to door trolls. I just say no and stand there and look at them. They always back down.
    • IAmLegend24, on 02/28/2008, -108/+6I hate shoplifters like you how much to you steal thief.
    • davidrools, on 02/28/2008, -1/+65I just play dumb and pretend they're offering me something:
      Waste of an employee at the door: "Can I see your receipt, please?"
      Me: "Huh? Oh, no thanks." and walk away.
      • Zipko, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11I like that kind of response myself. The line "No thanks, I'm not interested today" works to avoid any akward tension. Makes it seem like I misunderstood them and thought they were offering something.
      • lex0nyc, on 02/28/2008, -0/+39This is why I immediately shove all receipts I'm given into my underwear.
      • NSMike, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9Unfortunately for me, the only place where I run into this is Costco, where if I tell them that, they can take away my membership.
        • Elliuotatar, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1They could bar people from Home Depot though, and they don't do that. For that reason I kinda doubt they enforce that costco policy.
        • lex0nyc, on 02/28/2008, -0/+18Again, I point to my underwear method.
    • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -25/+27I just show them my reciept. The whole 5-10 seconds they steal from my life gives me the chance to zip my jacket, find my car keys, corral the kids.

      • blackinthmiddle, on 02/28/2008, -12/+16I have to agree with you. Pick your battles.
        • Elliuotatar, on 02/28/2008, -5/+7Yes, let's wait until there is a camera on every street corner and they've installed tracking devices in all our cellphones and cars, and taken away our guns. _THEN_ WE FIGHT!
          • JeffD, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1What so you mean we should fight now?
          • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -5/+3I find it said that the DiggNation has come to equate some validating their receipt with a civil rights violation.

            How our education system failed us.
      • theratdotus, on 02/28/2008, -14/+3i smell pussy... ha!
        • raynar, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7wash your hands after you play with yourself. it'll go away.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 02/28/2008, -11/+19I just keep the receipt in my hand so when I get to them I hand it to them they look at it glance at the bag mark it and away I go. So it takes me an additional 10 seconds. OR I can be an ***** and make someone making minimum wage life hard and waste the same 10 seconds. Lets see, since I'm not an immature *****, I might as well spend the 10 seconds and thank the person when they are done and hopefully at least make them feel better about doing a monotonous boring job all day for crap pay.
        • shark72, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8Well, there's a middle ground. I don't show them my receipt, but I don't give them a dirty look or otherwise cop an attitude, either. I just step around the folks dutifully queueing up to show their receipt, and go on my way.
          • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2Somehow I don't think they're too afraid of somebody who describes himself as "AngryDigger"
        • sancho, on 02/28/2008, -2/+510 seconds? Hardly. Usually they don't even bother to look at the bag--they just see that you have a receipt and they wave you on. Most of the time I barely break stride as I'm exiting, and they never seem to care.

          That said, if there's a line to exit the building, I might view things differently.
      • SIRBERUS, on 02/28/2008, -0/+18I was the same way until some illiterate walmart woman didn't see something on the receipt that was in my bag, took my stuff, called security, sat me down in the back, and--20 minutes later--when the manager went to check the receipt, low and behold the item was there, just abbreviated.

        I used to think "Oh hey, no big deal, helping them do their jobs." Not anymore though. I don't have to show my receipt, so I don't. It's me preventing some idiot from wasting more of my time.
      • siszam, on 02/28/2008, -4/+7Because you give your rights to easily they expect everyone else to. If they look at your reciept now what form of "security" will they be doing when your children are grown? Cavity searches?
        • PleaseJustDie, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1WTH? There's one thing to spend 10 seconds to look over a receipt, its completely different to break the law and sexually violate people in public. I seriously doubt that it will ever become a slippery slope that badly and if it does, then there will be way more pressing issues with society as a whole than checkout line violations.
    • RealmDown, on 02/28/2008, -5/+5Hero. I wish I could digg you twice.
    • tpodr, on 02/28/2008, -0/+20Last time the door troll at Target asked to see my receipt, I asked him if he thought I had stolen something. He wasn't sure what to say. Needless to say, I just kept going.
    • blakeage, on 02/28/2008, -0/+15What a lame job that must be...your whole day filled with constantly reminding people they may be thieves.
    • Misanthrope, on 02/28/2008, -9/+22Wow. You actually stand there and look at them? That's pretty ***** retarded dude. They're just doing their jobs, they don't really give two thoughts about your precious constitution, it's a ***** store man...it's not the government bringing you down.

      Try treating people like human beings...maybe you'll make some friends and not creep people out.
      • fotbr, on 02/28/2008, -7/+7I don't really care about being friends with the slack-jawed morons asking for receipts. I also don't care about pissing them off. It takes less time and effort to simply ignore them.
        • fajitamelt, on 02/28/2008, -4/+5Um, he just said to try to treat them like human beings, i.e, showing them you realize they have feelings to, and just generally being nice. By ignoring them, you are treating them like a lost dog on the side of the road.
      • Hangly, on 02/28/2008, -5/+8Soldiers, police and IRS agents are just "doing their jobs" too. Doesn't mean you should cooperate with them if they overstep their authority.
        • WocCixelsyd, on 02/29/2008, -5/+2Please explain to me how asking to see a receipt is overstepping authority.
      • NonServium, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5"They're just doing their jobs"

        Why do so many f-ing dumbsh1ts actually think this is a good excuse for a person behaving immorally? Someone gave him money to do it so it's okay? No, you're retarded.
        • Misanthrope, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2That's just complete *****. A 17 year old kid asking for your receipt is not, in ANY ***** WAY immoral. How can you even think that's a reasonable point of view.

          I ***** hate people who think that every little god damn thing is slight on their rights. You know what, that kid at the door has a right to make a living. I really doubt he thought to ask if some basement-dwelling dweeb on the internet was going to get mad at him for asking for a sales slip...it's just the most retarded thing to get mad about. People like you are a ***** bane on humanity. The ENTIRE WORLD would be a better place if you were to up and die today. I would actually come to your funeral and ***** laugh at you dead ***** face.

          I really really hate people like you.
          • NonServium, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1"That's just complete *****."

            No, it is obviously true. Morality is not determined by whether or not someone is paying you. F-ing morons like yourself should stop using "just doing his job" as an excuse. If you want to argue whether or not an action or set of actions is moral, talk about the merits of the actions, don't just dismiss any possible questioning with "well he's getting paid so it's okay, hi-yuck".

            "A 17 year old kid"

            Oh look, you're trying to give us a caricature of this scenario instead of the reality of it. A naively innocent 17 year old is the one doing the searches huh? I've never seen any of these professional harassers who were 17, but hey, please continue trying to bias the situation to match your belief set, instead of changing your belief set to match the situation genius.

            "asking for your receipt is not, in ANY ***** WAY immoral. How can you even think that's a reasonable point of view."

            I consider participating in creating a culture where people are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence to be immoral. To try and create the illusion that people must submit to any searches by any company that feels inclined to conduct such things, (and of course without any kind of warrant which was issued only upon probable cause), is anti-American.

            "I ***** hate people who think that every little god damn thing is slight on their rights."

            I'm sure the founding fathers could care less that you hate them.

            "You know what, that kid at the door has a right to make a living."

            And somebody "actually standing there and looking at them" is a violation of their rights huh? By your own definition, shouldn't you "***** hate" yourself too then? No wonder you're a misanthrope.

            "I really doubt he thought to ask if some basement-dwelling dweeb"

            Oh look, biasing the situation again. Trying to get people to associate my words with a negative caricature and thus be opposed to them for that reason, instead of fairly considering the points I bring up. I see what you're doing there.

            "was going to get mad at him for asking for a sales slip...it's just the most retarded thing to get mad about."

            Actually what's worse is to get mad because the person ignores you when you ask for the slip or politely says no, which is what they all have done every time to me.

            "People like you are a ***** bane on humanity."

            You, you know a lot about "people like me". Always thinking in terms of caricatures over there.

            "The ENTIRE WORLD would be a better place if you were to up and die today."

            Oh I don't know. I think my mommy would miss me. And I don't see how Yvette Blavitsky, the owner of the name I randomly selected from a Russian phone directory, would personally benefit from my death. Seeing that we've never met, and probably never would have, and I don't think any of our actions would have ever had an affect on each other.

            By the way, in your mental model of reality that has all these caricatures taking the place of real people, such as your door-checkers being innocent naive kids and all those who don't like them being basement dwellers who only exist on the internet, how does the caricature you subscribe to of a raving madman compare with the tone of your last post? Just wondering.

            "I would actually come to your funeral and ***** laugh at you dead ***** face."

            I wouldn't care, I'd be dead. Logic really isn't your strong suit is it?

            "I really really hate people like you."

            You should work on that.
    • exomni, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7I tell them they'd have to reach into my boxers to get it.
    • Hangly, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5Same here. I always brush past the door guard at Fry's.

      Legally they have to stand down. If they in any way imply you might have stolen something they're legally liable.
      • Matt2k, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Don't be a pussy about it. Let them insinuate all they want. Then defy them.
    • TBobes, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5That is pretty lame. Its that hard to keep your receipt in your hands just to show the guy on the way out. He could care less if you actually do or not, it is the managers that are yelling at him to make sure he does it. That guy doesn't want to ask it just as much as you don't want to show it, so make his a day little easier and show him the damn receipt. (most of those people by the door checking bags and such only do that about 1-2 days a week, the other days they are in the back on truck nights to help organize. There job title is inventory worker, no sit in the front your whole life. That is how it is at Best Buy anyway, don't know about anywhere else)
    • mrjoelkamp, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2They check receipts to lower theft, obviously, it must help for them to keep paying for someone to be there.

      You don't have to show them your receipt, but by not doing so you look like an ass to everyone that's watching you. Just take 10 seconds to flash your receipt and stop complaining.

    • fartbuttes, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1Wow you're such a ***** hero and so is this guy in the article. Aww, too hard to reach into your bag or pocket to pull out a receipt for potentially thousands of dollars of items? (Typically only HUGE box stores like Costco and Home Depot or big box electronics like Best Buy do this, and for good reason) Wow so sorry to be an inconvenience to you! If you don't like their policy then don't shop there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be detained by an officer for violating a store policy related to prevention of theft, especially if the guy was being an ***** about it as it sounds like he was. I could maybe see some kind of argument for "sticking it to the man" by not showing your receipt, somehow keeping some freedom... but it's so trivial. It's such a non-issue. It's so easy to just show them the receipt which they will just scan for five seconds and then send you on your way. As for the argument that more shrinkage occurs due to employee theft? I'd like to see the numbers on that one as that's not the impression I get from retail managers I've worked with and spoken to. Especially not at a place like Home Depot. Oh yeah, the floor clerk is going to put a 2x4 in his backpack and try to sneak out the door!! No. This is ridiculous and you should probably consider suicide.
      • zaxroom, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Well next time you had the receipt to someone that leaves before you, is it a little to hard to fabricate one with your awesome telepathic powers?
    • NonServium, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Last time I ran into one of these receipt checkers was at a Best Buy a couple weeks ago. The guy asked to see my receipt, I politely said no and continued towards the exit. He responded by becoming confrontational and attempting to be intimidating. He stood up and said "What did you say to me?" in a loud and accusing tone. Obviously, he was trying to make it appear to others as if I was to blame for any conflict that should occur due to hurling some insult at him. I was a bit taken aback by this. I'd had these types say "sir... SIR!" loudly as I'd walked past and ignored them, but this was the first time I'd had one act like they were going to start a fight over it. Also, I was confused as to why this guy, who was obviously old and frail, would possibly want to start a fight with me when it was plain as day that he would be in a lot of trouble if we did. Was the $8 an hour or whatever they get paid really enough for this moron to act in such a suicidal way? Did he really think I'd insulted him?

      Confused and not sure what this guy was thinking, I simply repeated, still being polite, "I said no" and continued towards the door.
      He followed me, but maintained his distance and said in a demanding tone "We have a right."
      I thought it interesting that he brought up the idea of rights, I guess his training involved in addition to harassing and trying to intimidate people, arguing with them over their rights. I didn't bring it up, so he felt compelled to in order to advance to the next part in his trained script I guess.
      Still pretty confused, I looked back just as I was starting to step past the sliding glass doors.
      "You have a right to my property?" I asked, wondering if he really believed this.
      "You're in OUR store" he said, as if that was enough justification for them to strip search me if they wanted to, let alone demand a receipt. However by the time he finished that sentence it was no longer true, and as I turned around prepared to explain the utter ridiculousness of his argument the glass door slid shut behind me.

      He had already turned around and went back to his post, ready to ask the next person he thought didn't look right for "your papers please!" in his best German accent as they attempted to exit the store. For a split second I considered walking the 15 feet over to the entrance door, going back in and responding to his last ridiculous statement, but I decided against it.

      Since then, I've decided that next time this happens I'm going to be the one to cause the scene. Don't wait for them to become rude after I either say no or ignore their request to see a receipt, (all of them have suddenly become rude at this point) but become rude first myself. Hey, these idiots are supporting a fascist culture, no need for me to be polite to these anti-freedom jackasses anyway. Perhaps I'll just start screaming "You're papers please!" in a German accent. Or maybe I'll demand to look in their wallet, purse, trunk of their car or whatever to ensure they didn't steal from me! I'll probably do a combination of both, along with mocking them.
    • TrevaLVF, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Receipt inspector? Looks like a dream job for dedicated school hall monitors when they're old enough to serve the corporate machine.
      Mandatory and random drug tests - another Home Depot policy, but for employees. Give it time, they'll be testing customers' pee, blood and hair when laws require consumers to submit samples in order to make purchases and get out of the stores without going to jail. By then, the herd will be injected with v-chips that will document all purchases with time and location of each shopping trip.
  • lowerdown, on 02/28/2008, -9/+264i don't either. last time some granny at wally world tried to grab my arm to stop me from leaving but i just Tazed her.
    • chiefbttlwshr, on 02/28/2008, -1/+41It's so wrong, but so right.
    • knetworx, on 02/28/2008, -13/+6Don't taze me br-- oh, nevermind...
    • punkcat, on 02/28/2008, -2/+23that was my mom! and you had dropped something was all :(
    • colin8651, on 02/28/2008, -2/+14I show my receipt to the senior citizens at WalMart, but if it is a younger person I walk on by.

      • CobaltBlue, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9I do the same thing. Maybe it's our conditioning to respect our elders.
    • blakeage, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7Is she still alive??
      • Oronar, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4Was it a triumph?
        • marktastic, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Did you go ahead and leave her?
        • johnmatias, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Is it because she prefers to stay inside?
      • oxdeltaxo, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2Was it a huge success?
      • RobotChicken1, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1Ok, I thought maybe this would be a funny differentiation from the normal "LET'S SING STILL ALIVE" *****, but turns out it isn't. I am so surprised.
    • beaunewcomb, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Brilliant!!!!! lol
    • YojimboJango, on 02/28/2008, -0/+19The definition of assault is "Threatening words of posture." The definition of battery is "Any unwanted physical contact." If she tells you to stop then grabs your arm it's assault and battery.
      I learned this when a friend of mine got convicted of this when he told a guy to get off his sidewalk and stop video taping his little girls playing in the sprinkler. He then poked the guy in the chest three times while telling him to leave. Since the guy was taping the whole thing he had something to show the judge, and the judge had no choice but to uphold the minimum sentence (even the judge thought it was BS but the guy had proof).
      Life lesson: Don't touch anyone, and if someone touches you you have full right to defend yourself. If one of the store employees try to grab you and tell you to stop in a tone you feel is threatening, you can punch them in the face if that's what it takes to make them let you go. The only people with the authority to do this are the police.
      • Bioboy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5More people should read this post. This is the most correct thing I have read today. Just remember you have to stop defending yourself when the threat has stopped. If you get grabbed on the way out you can take the reasonable steps to stop them from grabbing you but you cannot keep fighting with them once they let go. You can press charges of course.
      • Chris63084, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Yeah, knock granny on her geriatric ass!
      • JStraum, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4And as always, when you're faced with such oppression, using your brain, interpersonal skills and a level head is completely optional...
      • RunnyBabbit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2If only there were some sort of arbiter to judge such events on a case-by-case basis and interpret the intention and spirit of the law.
      • knight666, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"and the judge had no choice but to uphold the minimum sentence (even the judge thought it was BS but the guy had proof)."
        This is exactly why the Dutch legal system doesn't have a minimalum penalty.
        If you have a mimimum penalty you can never dismiss a case because of it's ridiculousness.
        A judge in the Netherlands would look at that, say "That's stupid. You're stupid." and dismiss it.

        Ofcourse, our system is far from perfect too.
    • tgc1, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2That'll teach 'em.
    • xkorbin, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1Don't taze me boyy!!
      • blkrabit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I think what you meant to say was: "Don't tase me, Sonny!"
    • j1ggy, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Did you zeus her?
  • 99CentFreedom, on 02/28/2008, -93/+26Ladies and gentleman, this is the type of Orwellian, can't take a dump without being scared type of society we are headed for if we do not unite as one and get Ron Paul elected.
    • scallon, on 02/28/2008, -20/+26Dear god, you guys are still around. Man go away already. God Jan 20th can't get here fast enough...
    • Cerialthriller, on 02/28/2008, -17/+26oh you left your tinfoil hat at my house, here you can have it back, i dont need it
      • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -31/+6Anyone that uses the tinfoil hat joke will be auto buried from now on.
        • Nougat, on 02/28/2008, -5/+11You're part of the conspiracy.
        • Ajajadude, on 02/28/2008, -7/+13So far, I see you getting buried and he's getting dugg up. How's that working out for you?
    • NikoKun, on 02/28/2008, -4/+10As much as I'd love to see Ron Paul win... he's not going to...

      Obama is not a bad choice though... He's got a good chance too.
      • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1I will vote my conscious, not the lesser of the 3 evils.
        America likes being a police state even more than it likes complaining about it - just look at our voting record.
    • JavertHolmes, on 02/28/2008, -8/+19You don't need Ron ***** Paul to "Fix" this ***** problem , as the ***** fix to the god damn ***** problem is to not shop at the cocksucking store if you feel like getting anally penetrated by "receipt man" upon exiting the ***** store is not a ***** good policy for a ***** store to have.

      No ***** are forcing me at ***** gunpoint to ***** shop there, and this ***** consumerist story was not ***** blocked or censored at all by any ***** level of government or ***** business/corporate ***** interest. Nothing needs to ***** be fixed in this ***** situation except for a ***** majority deciding where to spend their hard-earned (except for you lazy inheritance ***** and ***** leeches on society) ***** money.

      I hope this ***** explains why ***** Ron ***** Paul should not be ***** brought up every ***** time a ***** injustice is discovered, as the concepts of common ***** sense usually ***** prevail over the long term.

      Have a nice ***** day.
      *****.


      • smacksaw, on 02/28/2008, -11/+1Ron Paul could help you with your vocabulary. Ron Paul doesn't say '*****' that much.

        Ron Paul
      • thebellmaster1x, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5@smacksaw
        Barack Obama could help you with your vocabulary.
        He doesn't say "Ron Paul" so much.
      • 99CentFreedom, on 02/28/2008, -8/+0Sir, are you aware that Ron Paul is the -only candidate- that will stand up for our constitutional rights? Can't trust an empty suit like Obama or a commie sympathizer like Clinton to do that, for all we know they may just sell America to China and then we'll have real problems. No need for such disgusting vulgarity either.
      • tightscrummy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Shhh...listen....you can hear the web content-filters crashing.
      • altshiftM, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Total Times "*****" has been said: 30
        31 if you count this one. Awesome rant.
      • blkrabit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Well ***** said!
    • unreg, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4Door Greeter / Reciept Checkers make up the majority of Ron Paul's constituency.
    • krizzle, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I guess you never heard that snakes and alligators can climb up the plumbing. I'M SO SCARED TO DEFECATE : (
      Now I can't go to home depot to find a fix :(
    • EvilBadger, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1HEY A.D.D. BOYS BACK ON TRACK!!!!!!
    • proliance, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2You haven't seen the polls recently, have you?
  • wuxia, on 02/28/2008, -6/+71I wonder what the black female cop would have done had he simply eaten the receipt?
    • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -0/+24Same thing they do if they think you swallow something illegal, they choke the ***** out of you and try to force you to vomit.
      • piper999, on 02/28/2008, -0/+14So probably not worth it then?
        • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -0/+14Unless you have someone tape the whole thing so you can sue afterwards.
    • orxor, on 02/28/2008, -7/+56She'd say "Oh no you di'ent!!! (Smack)"

      Couldn't help myself Just digg me down.
    • Zain123, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5She would have tased him of course.
    • fajitamelt, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1Gee, I wonder why he didn't describe the Home Depot security officer in the same manner as the city police officer? Racist much?
    • eufouria, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4"Now what'chu gone done that for?"

      *Please Note*
      My only experience with black female cops is watching Reno 911, and that show sucks.
    • harusp3x, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Sir, may I double-check your rec- NOM NOM NOM NOM
  • jstohler, on 02/28/2008, -7/+25We now have stories about Tiger, Best Buy and Circuit City. Trend, anyone?
    • punkcat, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8i predict a Sharper Image Ionizer return ending in a prison sentence.
      • mooninite, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1LOL, best comment today.
      • Gudeldar, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1It better happen quick, Sharper Image is going bankrupt.
    • knetworx, on 02/28/2008, -7/+1Ooh! I see the trend! None of those have anything to do with Home Depot!
    • TotalHalibut, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4You are so insightful. Keep going, and you'll see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8Tiger?
      • NSMike, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3TigerDirect, PC Components fences... Er, uh, I mean, retailers.
    • johnmatias, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Conglomo: We Own You
    • TrevaLVF, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Is the "Tiger" a "Food Tiger" grocery, or something else?
  • digitallysick, on 02/28/2008, -2/+162I don't mind showing a receipt, but its how you present yourself. Last time at walmart i had the lady run out of the door and grab my arm like i was thief. I showed my receipt , showed that all items in the bags were on the receipt. The paying customer shouldn't be treated like a criminal because your store can't get its act together.
    • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -18/+28You have the right to charge her with assault if she really grabbed your arm. I would have pushed her to the ground and called the police myself and then shown the police my receipt once they arrive.
      • Coffeedemon, on 02/28/2008, -7/+46I'll humour you like the toughguy you are...

        Most normal folk will just patiently ask them to remove their arm first. Just because I might be capable of doing it physically and it is within some vague notion of my rights to be pushing women down in the street like captain libertardian does not mean I'll be doing it ... because doing things like that makes you a scumbag.
        • Waterrat, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8 It does indeed.
          • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4YES Coffeedemon. Assault. Next time a cop stops you take your pinky and gently "touch" the officers chest with it and see what happens. He did not inflate anything the EMPLOYEE did by trying to COMPEL him to show a receipt and them the OFFICER did by illegally using her badge to COMPEL him to show it to the Employee. He did NO escalating they did 100% of that all themselves.
        • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -14/+7Oh I forgot she was a women, that gives her the right to assault whoever she pleases. I think you are the one that is being a scumbag. Are the people that resist police brutality also "captain libertarian". Do you think asking someone to let you go will really work? I guess you missed the entire point on why people grab each other.
          • Coffeedemon, on 02/28/2008, -7/+10Assault? For grabbing a persons arm? I'll recount a little story from my youth. A dear friend of mine and I were wrestling and he decided to grab me from behind in a headlock. I reacted too quick and elbowed him in the head by reflex chipping his tooth. We both learned a lesson that day - he won't surprise someone in that way again and I will think before applying unnecessary force for the situation.

            This is not police brutality and you hurt the cause by inflating this circumstance to that level. I did not say the situation could not escalate but think for a second, **be an adult** and ask them (remember for a second we're talking about leaving a store and someone who has probably yelled for you to stop has grabbed your arm - this is not you walking down the street at night in a rough part of town). If they decline then and only then do you have the right to go further. If everyone just jumps to that level for every slight and perceived "assault" we'll be no better than chimpanzees.

            Oh it was libertarDian for a reason.
          • Scheissen, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1Shutup neocon libtard.
          • nicholai, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1Did you mean: libertarian
          • Coffeedemon, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1"Shutup neocon libtard"
            ...one of these words is not like the other... one of these words does not belong.
      • fuzzybeard, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Sir,
        I feel nothing but contempt for you as I am writing this. It takes a REAL man to shove a woman to the ground. Next time try pressing assault charges and demand that the person be fired on the spot.
    • FortyCaliber, on 02/28/2008, -21/+5I would have grabbed her throat. People react to being pushed... but, like dogs, become submissive and controllable when you have their windpipe.
      • Coffeedemon, on 02/28/2008, -5/+28you'd do no such thing, Internet Toughguy.
        • aceakm, on 02/28/2008, -13/+6I'd kill her.
          • nicholai, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1Coffeedemon is a troll that gets his kicks from pretending to be better than everyone else. He is hardly worth responding to since he has never read the libertarian NAP.
        • Travelsonic, on 02/28/2008, -10/+3"internet tough guy"

          Please, buiy a new line.

          Yes, people say things, but that isn't everybody.

          Stop being an arrogant prig.
          • Coffeedemon, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6Look up the word "arrogant". Now compare my response and the idiocy spewed by johnny anonymous about how he would choke out anyone who dared to touch his mighty arm in the parking lot.
          • aceakm, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4How the ***** is he being arrogant?
        • Travelsonic, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4A bit extreme, killing her would be, but still... By generalizing everybody's comments on a course of action based on a) one's comment, and b) that the fact it's online, aren't you being arrogant and in turn calling the kettle black?
          • aceakm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Haha

            Kettle: What did you call me?!

            Seriously though, I wouldn't kill her. Just paralyze her, or murder her favorite pet.
          • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3I would ask first then if that failed I would grasp her fingers with significant but non damaging force (enough to make her winch in pain) and say remove your hand or I will remove it for you with significantly more force and place you under arrest for assault and illegal detainment. Thats all. Punching someone or grabbing someones through it just silly and bullyish. We DO live in a civilized society no need for that crap.
      • fuzzybeard, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Responding to assault in a way that will get you aggravated assault charges at a minimum...BRAVO, sir, the world needs more like you.
        /fueled by Sarcasm, just ask for it by name!
    • piper999, on 02/28/2008, -21/+6Would it not be easier for all concerned if you just showed your ***** receipt? Its not like anyone is forced at gunpoint to shop at Best Buy or Home Depot or any of these places.
      • jstohler, on 02/28/2008, -1/+10Easier != better
      • cawpin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11No, it would be easier if they didn't ask me for it. They have no reason, or right, to.
        • warcin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5no they have the right to ask, just as you have the right to refuse and they do have a reason, even if it is not legally enforceable
      • dougmc, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Yes, it would be easier for all concerned if you just shut up and blindly submitted to authority (or anything that vaguely looks like authority), yes.

        And if we had that sort of mentality, we'd still be a colony of Britain.
        • blackinthmiddle, on 02/28/2008, -7/+2Honestly, pick your battles. So imagine if we all decided to stop showing our receipts and 1% of customers turn out to be thieves. Of course, HD isn't going to eat the cost but pass it on to us. Really, is it that hard to show a receipt that is still in your hand anyway?
          • dougmc, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6I have chosen that to be a battle worth fighting.

            If an actual police officer asks me to look at my receipt, that's a battle that I'll probably decide not to fight. But Joe ShopOwner doesn't have the right to detain me unless he actually has a valid reason to think I was shoplifting, and so I'm not going to let him do so.

            It might be easier if I just gave up my civil rights, but no, I don't think so. Perhaps it's more the principal of the thing than any actual damage, but still .... my rights, my right to use them.
          • belly917, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2RTFA, he didn't have the receipt. It was with the other half of the purchased items that his dad was bringing to the car.
          • piper999, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1If being rude to some little old lady is your idea of 'fighting a battle' which you will then retreat from when a police officer comes along then I think 'cowardly' can justifiably added to my previous 'wanker' insult.
        • piper999, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1What a spineless little wanker you must be in real life. A little old lady asks for your receipt at Home Depot and you get all hot and bothered because the US used to be a colony of Britain. And to think the sacrifice of your forebears was all in vain because now you have to face the ignomy and humiliation of living in the kind of jackboot heeled fascist nightmare of a country where your God given right to buy shelves has been ruined by you having to show proof of purchase. Honestly, you'd be better off in communist Russia. Its a disgrace that you have to live like this and my heart bleeds for you.
          • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Exactly. THis is a VERY easy simply no probability of damage battle to pick. IE its an ideal battle for people to begin enforcing there rights as people. This is the perfect battle. Except for these freak cases we see on dig 99% of the time you will get an odd look or a hey come back here and thats it. If enough people did this they would STOP doing it.
          • nicholai, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1There is no such thing as communist Russia, you ***** retard.
          • piper999, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2No such thing as communist Russia? Hahahahahaha

            And you're calling ME a retard? Go back to fantasising about hitting old ladies outside Walmart you UTTER UTTER losers.
    • mercury187, on 02/28/2008, -4/+7Did anyone read the article? "my father had the receipt and already left the immediate area", he couldnt show a receipt because he didnt have one because his father left.
      • DeadlyAlpaca, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Did you?

        "In addition to this incident, I've experienced the below within the past few months:"

        He then goes on to list the separate incident involving his father. Also, in the police report he filed, when detailing the encounter he says that he held up his receipt to the employee and continued moving.
    • thedragon4453, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I think that these big businesses just need to start running their stores well. The reason we have the "show the receipt" policy is because stores are not staffing enough people to pay proper attention to their departments.

      Even still, its not going to control theft that well either. Really, all it is going to do is catch the mistakes of the cashier that forgot to ring an item. Its not like they are patting you down (yet), so if you are not a retarded thief, you're not going to put your stolen merch in a store bag.
    • joegibes, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9I feel awkward when I walk out of the store without buying anything after I wander around for 15 minutes... In my big parka (it's Wisconsin and it's cold) I'm sure I look suspicious.
    • Yusayoh, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I walked out of a Best Buy without buying anything and the guy said "Find everything okay?" to which I replied "I didn't buy anything." He looked like he was gonna shoot me or something. No wonder Best Buy sucks.
  • ggnictee, on 02/28/2008, -57/+11it's not unlawful for a store owner to hold someone for a reasonable amount of time; when there is reasonable suspicion of shoplifting. It's standard tort law.
    So while I really, really, hate the stupid (and useless) 'show us your receipt' exits: it's not illegal. A store can require you to hope on one foot while exiting to shop there if they want.
    Detainment is a separate issue but if they have a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting they can hold you for a reasonable time (basicly long enough to figure out if you shoplifted or not)

    So yes it's dumb and yes they shouldn't be doing this: but it's not necessarily Illegal (clearly I don't have enough facts to make a decision)
    • Samiyam, on 02/28/2008, -1/+55Stores have the right to ask you to present a receipt at the exit, just as you have a right to decline to show it to them. It is no different than Home Depot asking to look in your purse as you exited the store, or asking you to take off your shoes, or hand them your hat, all in the name of "loss prevention". Once you have paid for your purchase, you are not obligated to show them anything you own, including your receipt, bag, or items in the bag.

      It is illegal for a store (or police officer at the store) to detain someone without reasonable suspicion, and refusing to show a receipt when asked does not qualify. Being observed while picking out an item, concealing it upon your person, and attempting to exit the store without paying for said item are requirements for reasonable suspicion.
      • ggnictee, on 02/28/2008, -18/+6It is true that they need to have a reasonable suspicion. But no one has enough information at this point to say whether they had that or not. If it was simply his refusal to show his receipt, it's going to depend on the jurisdiction. It all comes down to what is reasonable under the circumstances.
        And that's the point really: we don't have enough info. My point was it's not necessarily illegal. (necessarily being the key word there) It's just annoying when everyone gets all internet-angry over something without having any facts. If it turns out that this was illegal: Yes home depot should pay. And Yes we should get all kinds of angry (on the internet and elsewhere) but right now we have zero in the way of facts. And there is the serious possibility that home depot acted lawfully.
        All I'm suggesting is everyone take a deep breath and wait for the court to do it's job.
        As I said before (and I'll repeat because it seems to have been missed) I do not agree with home depot (or any of store) policy of checking receipts etc. I think it's dumb. But if you don't like it that much, don't shop there. It's just not illegal for them to do that. We need more facts before we can justifiably get angry.
      • Nougat, on 02/28/2008, -2/+14The problem starts when "failure to comply" becomes "reasonable suspicion." The whole "if you have nothing to hide" thing.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3God I hate that statement so much it makes me rage with anger. If you have nothing to hide they why does it bother you?

          The PERFECT reply to that is this.

          If I have nothing to hide why do YOU need to look?
    • kablammo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+29No.

      No store can detain you for "...long enough to figure out if you shoplifted...". If a store is going to detain you for *any* length of time, they better be damn sure that you did steal something.

      And what the hell is this hopping on one foot nonsense? Do you think that just because you're on someone's property they have the right to force you to do things?

      • sancho, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3A store has the right to ask you to abide by their rules, or to not shop there. Home Depot could ban you from the store for failing to show the receipt, however they have few rights regarding the already-made sale.
        • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Thats right. THATS ALL they can do. they can not COMPEL you to show the receipt. THATS the whole crux of this problem here sancho! we are not saying they can not ask. We are saying they can not COMPEL. In this case they not only tried to compel but a police officer in fact FORCED him to comply. The MOST they could have done legally was ask him to leave which is what he was already doing anyway.
    • JasonsLan, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6(clearly you don't have enough facts to make sense)
    • enochthewalker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Companies do not have the right to detain unless you have actually done something illegal. That is why you do not detain someone unless you are certain that they have done something wrong. This is lawsuit gold.
    • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -1/+17But failure to present a receipt can't be "reasonable suspicion of shoplifting". Failure to present an alibi does not equal a confession.
      • Nerys, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2The supreme court has already upheld many times that upholding your rights can never be construed as implication of guilt. Ever.
    • Otto, on 02/28/2008, -0/+19"it's not unlawful for a store owner to hold someone for a reasonable amount of time; when there is reasonable suspicion of shoplifting. It's standard tort law."

      Yes, actually, it is illegal for them to detain you unless you actually *did* shoplift something. Standard constitutional law. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to detain somebody unless you're a police officer. Store employees don't qualify.

      "So while I really, really, hate the stupid (and useless) 'show us your receipt' exits: it's not illegal."

      Wrong again. It's not illegal for them to ask, no, but it is illegal for them to attempt to forcibly detain you when you refuse. And detaining you == preventing you from leaving.

      "A store can require you to hope on one foot while exiting to shop there if they want."

      I have no idea where you get that idea from, but no, they cannot.
      • sancho, on 02/28/2008, -6/+0Most states have shopkeeper's privilege laws. Look it up. Suspicion is, indeed, an on-the-books reason for a shopkeeper to detain you.

        If you want to challenge the constitutionality of such laws, that's a different issue, but I doubt that screaming, "My rights are being violated!" as the guy at the door asks for your receipt is going to get you anywhere.
        • sancho, on 02/28/2008, -4/+0Gotta love being dugg down for stating facts that people don't like.
        • Otto, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Shopkeeper's privilege most definitely does not include the power of search, so them asking to see your belongings and your receipt *does not apply* in this case, and your denial does not amount to reasonable suspicion in those areas where there is an explicit law affirming the common law principle of shopkeeper's privilege.
      • zestyhedgehog, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Unlawful detainments by store have nothing to do with constitutional law, it's pure tort.
        • Otto, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1It's tort law when they are applying tort law or common law principles as a basis for it. However, in this case, none of those principles apply, whereas the fourth amendment does.
    • Pureeviljester, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4at this one store the manager tried to make me separate from my girlfriend. as in we had to go on the opposite side of the store. and i said no, that's ridiculous. he said it's my store do it or get out and i said okay and we left.

      it was a small mall store but i think the reason is because her brother had been banned for stealing something. so i didn't make a big deal of it for her sake.
    • slicky803, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Silence, armchair lawyer!
  • funktimus, on 02/28/2008, -4/+48I used to work at Home Depot for about 10 months before I couldn't bear it. I wouldn't get too upset at the people working the floor. If they were anything like me, they just don't know how to deal with the demand.
    Too much of the management is incompetent, lazy, or good but don't know how to deal with what the greedy shallow district managers who pay visits once in a while. They're more interested in the store keeping up appearances rather than having an adequate number of staff on the floor. Instead of giving money to the store, they rather spend jetfuel having the executives visit stores and let customers meet them. I don't know how egotistic and stupid you have to be to think this is a good business model. Working construction myself once, I know contractors want their supplies and be out as fast as possible. They'd prefer to have the extra guy helping them load the stuff, not to shake hands and chit-chat with some idiot from corporate. This same stuff goes for Joe Anybody who fell into his wife's trap to do some housework on Sunday. They want their topsoil so they can dump it in the garden and enjoy their one free day of the week. They don't give a crap about these exec's coming and making sure people are still falling for "You can do it, We can Help" jargon.

    The people on the floor I worked with, many are great people, but they're being jerked around just as much as the customers.

    • meeztered, on 02/28/2008, -17/+1I think it's obvious that Home Depot has a good business model, no matter what you think. Look how much money they have, the founder of Home Depot probably has about 1000 times the money you will make in your life at any given moment, so stop trying to act like you know anything about anything.
      • diggduggDOOM, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8More money makes you more right, don't it? What are your credentials? Or perhaps I should ask how much money you have.

        Home Depot was doing well thanks in no small part to the housing bubble.
      • verto351, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Where would you rank against Paris Hilton?
    • ImperialSoren, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6had a good business model, as soon as the lowes opens here in fort collins I will never go back to depot. nor will anyone else I know who has had to go there much
    • tgc1, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Yes, but that does not mean either of you should put up with it. The customer doesn't have to shop there, and you do not have to work there. There's always a choice. And again, I suggest people vote with their wallets. In your case, i'd have suggested telling to take the job and stuff it.
  • Samiyam, on 02/28/2008, -9/+101In case anyone is confused, showing the receipt at the door has nothing to do with shoplifting. It is used to deter employee theft in the form of cashiers undercharging customers whom they know or are helping to steal from the store. You get treated like a potential criminal because the store hasn't figured out a way to hire only honest cashiers.
    • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -3/+21they get what they pay for. they refuse to raise the wages enough to attract and retain decent, honest people and then take it out on costumers.
      • punkcat, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1stealing is OK if u are paid low.
      • steelclash84, on 02/28/2008, -4/+4Let's call it like it is: it's a damn cashier's job. It's not an in-demand job that has a lot of requirements, hence low pay.
        • Hamletlere, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6But apparently, it does require a large amount of trust, as the person is dealing with cash. Hence, one would think they'd pay more for people that could be trusted.
        • tgc1, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3I'm digging you down only because I think