posted
I saw this blog post slashdotted, and as it bears on conversations that we've had here in the past, I thought that I'd post about it (I usually avoid posting things once they've made it onto Slashdot, but occasionally I'll make an exception).
Essentially, the story is that the author of the blog refused to show his receipt and let his bag be examined on his way out of Circuit City, eventually called the police to report that the manager of Circuit City was preventing him from leaving the property, refused to show the police officer who responded to the call his driver's license (he was a passenger in the car he was trying to depart in), and was arrested.
From the blog entry:
quote:I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.
I'm sympathetic to his point, though if I'd been in his shoes I'd have shown my license to the cop, choosing to fight my battles one at a time.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, he's absolutely in the right. I just don't think it's smart to fight on two fronts at once if you can help it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the license point is part of the whole. There is a law specifically prohibiting what the cop did. The cop very clearly violated that law and he and his department is going to pay for it.
The only way to get laws like that enforced is to refuse to go along with their violation. It is exactly the "You don't mess with cops." idea that is being challenged here.
You have many legal rights that the police may not want you to have and will try to get you to waive or will bully you while violating them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sympathetic to his point, though if I'd been in his shoes I'd have shown my license to the cop, choosing to fight my battles one at a time.
Same here. That said, I'm impressed that this guy seems to understand the different issues. ("I’m most interested in seeing my charges dropped for refusing to present identification, but I view that as a completely separate issue from the store manager interfering with my egress.") Too many people making these kinds of stands dilute them by giving the appearance of being spoiled brats who hate rules.
This guy avoided that well, and his advocacy will be helped by it. He has identified two specific issues (one he didn't seek out) and is dealing with them separately.
His criminal charges will be easily handled. More interesting will be his civil suit against Circuit City for false imprisonment.
I do wish customers would stop giving in to post-hoc demands to be searched by private entities. Maybe the proper response is to immediately go to the customer service desk and return the merchandise (probably not). These stores need to be put in their place.
I definitely wouldn't have dialed 911 in response to the manager. I'm pretty sure I could have gotten him to move without doing that. In fact, depending on how busy I was that day, I might have enjoyed it. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be sure I understand the issue: businesses *aren't* allowed to search the bags of customers leaving their premises?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cops are bullies. This guy probably won't get anywhere because in court, cops always win.
Now that I've thought about it, I think I would have fought it too. I'm hoping a cop never asks me to take a Breathalyzer test. I would end up getting arrested.
Way to broad a statement. Some police officers are bullies. Many, many more are not.
quote:This guy probably won't get anywhere because in court, cops always win.
This is just wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if charges are dropped before or at his first real appearance. Even if this guy does get convicted, I've seen many, many counterexamples to "in court, cops always win."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think the license point is part of the whole. There is a law specifically prohibiting what the cop did. The cop very clearly violated that law and he and his department is going to pay for it.
The only way to get laws like that enforced is to refuse to go along with their violation. It is exactly the "You don't mess with cops." idea that is being challenged here.
You have many legal rights that the police may not want you to have and will try to get you to waive or will bully you while violating them.
Sure; "You don't mess with authority" is a dangerous attitude, and it's exactly what he's fighting. Fighting something like this is going to be emotionally exhausting, though, and is likely to be financially exhausting as well (though if the ACLU gets on board, as I hope they will, it needn't drain him financially). Given that, if I were in his shoes I'd pick my fights a little differently than he did. As I said, I'd rather fight on one front than two.
[Edited to add the text of the post I was specifically responding to]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, my best guess is that he'll have little trouble with the criminal case unless he's required by law to give his license to the officer. Prosecutors hate to lose.
If he was required to give the license, then the officer wasn't abusing his authority - it's a cause to take up with the legislature, not the officer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Just to be sure I understand the issue: businesses *aren't* allowed to search the bags of customers leaving their premises?
What do you mean when you say "allowed"? Are they allowed to if the customers consent? Sure. Are they allowed to force customers to submit to a search? Of course not.
Now... if a store posts a notice saying that customers making a purchase at the store do so with the condition that they agree to be searched before leaving the store, you could make a case that making the purchase is consent. But I imagine they might lose some business if they post something like that. I'd hope so, at any rate.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a way of finding out whether I need to present ID in my state (Oregon)? I've tried searching, but I mostly get stuff on traffic stops. I'm assuming that I'm not going to be operating a vehicle anytime soon. What if I don't have ID on me?
Edit to add: Even if they do post such a notice, do they then have a right to detain people who try to leave? I suppose there might be an implied contract somewhere, but it had better be pretty visible if so.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At my local Costco, they don't bag your merchandise, it's just loose in the cart, and they insist on checking your receipt against the contents of your cart as you leave the store.
It's not really searching, since it's in plain view, but it is really annoying that you have to wait in another 5 minute line after you've already waited 10 minutes to check out.
I guess I could just walk through and refuse to hand them my receipt. I'm guessing they'd chase me down and grab my cart, which is their property, so I'd then have to take my purchased goods out of the cart to get away...
OK, Costco would be a bad place to try this.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Costco and and Sam's club are different. You have to have a membership to purchase things from them. I'm assuming it says somewhere in the contract you sign that they are allowed to search you.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Costco and and Sam's club are different. You have to have a membership to purchase things from them. I'm assuming it says somewhere in the contract you sign that they are allowed to search you.
It does. At least, my Sam's club membership mentioned it, I remember. I don't mind it, I know that they will do it and I have my receipt ready and it's never taken longer than about 15 seconds once I reach the person checking the receipts. What's annoying is people who clearly don't understand what's happening and have put their receipt away and you have to wait while they fumble for it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had checkers call after me as I've ignored them on the way out. But so far, none of them have chased me, and they certainly haven't acted like stormtroopers the way the did with Righi.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. I never really thought about this, because most stores have those alarms that go off if you take unscanned merchandise through. I would imagine (though I'm not clear on all the legalize involved) that if the alarm went off, that would provide a sort of probable cause to search those bags.
Every time I go to Sam's Club (once a month), we hand over our receipt on the way out and they look over the items in our cart. Allowing them to do that might even be a clause in the membership agreement I signed. I definitely wouldn't fight it...I couldn't afford to buy meat at a regular grocery store. Here's the thing...you may not be required to submit to a search by a private party unless they have nasty signs posted, but they can prevent you from shopping at their store again because that is their right. In fact, that is probably how the manager should have handled the situation. (Although in this age of big cities and nameless faces, I'm not sure how he would enforce that.)
As for the ID thing, I've never been clear on when I have to and when I do not have to show it. I'm also not clear on how much protection the 4th amendment gives us.
Still, kudos to this guy for standing up for himself.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know the law on when police can ask for ID? I always was taught that you have to show ID in any situation.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if you don't have it? Having to show it in any situation implies that you must carry it on you at all times.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the law in Sri Lanka as well. But then, terrorism is active here, as is police corruption and police brutality...
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Requirements to show ID vary by state. The blog linked in the original post does list Ohio's requirements, which he looked up after the incident:
quote:I found the detail on Ohio’s “stop and identify” law. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but I will spell out the important part:
2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
posted
Er, I don't have any specific laws or rulings to back this up, but I don't know of any specific laws requiring you to carry ID unless you're driving or getting on a plane, or something of the sort, so I don't see how you can be required to show ID.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is some general information about stop and identify laws, including a list of what states have them.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: At my local Costco, they don't bag your merchandise, it's just loose in the cart, and they insist on checking your receipt against the contents of your cart as you leave the store.
It's not really searching, since it's in plain view, but it is really annoying that you have to wait in another 5 minute line after you've already waited 10 minutes to check out.
Huh...they usually just look at my receipt for like 3 seconds if that and just mark it clear and wave me through. But that's likely because I have about 20 items in my cart and they care more about other types of cart composition.
----- I too fall into the category of if a cop asks for ID I just give it to them. I did not know you don't have to give them ID or that state law might actually dictate what the case is.
edit: This is Utah's stop and identify rule,
quote:A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Can a person calling 911 from a circuit city claiming false imprisonment be said to be commiting or about to commit a public offense?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a lot to think about- I never knew I could refuse to have my bags searched. (Not that I'm planning to refuse to, I don't have energy for that)
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: I found it weird the police might NOT have a right to ask for your ID
<shudder> And that's how it begins...
Well, keep in mind that Kama grew up in Soviet and post-Soviet controlled Poland; her perspective is pretty natural, I think, when that's taken into consideration.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: I found it weird the police might NOT have a right to ask for your ID
<shudder> And that's how it begins...
Police absolutely have a right to ask for your ID. The question is whether you have a right to refuse to provide it. Or, alternatively, whether the police have a right to demand your ID.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: I found it weird the police might NOT have a right to ask for your ID
<shudder> And that's how it begins...
Well, keep in mind that Kama grew up in Soviet and post-Soviet controlled Poland; her perspective is pretty natural, I think, when that's taken into consideration.
Ah... no, I hadn't remembered that. Good point.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how I feel about this. I have a friend who works loss prevention at Wal-Mart. In one month they had over $300,000 in merchandise stolen from the electronics section alone (that's about $10,000 a day, about $416 every hour, just from electronics. try to imagine how many thieves have to walk out the doors every hour to account for this). And here's the scary thing, that figure is low. They get congratulated for only losing that much.
People absolutely steal from stores. Stores should have some way of protecting themselves from theft, and checking bags seems to me like a pretty simple and efficient way to do it. As far as searching your cart goes, the cart belongs to the store, not you. The store is letting you use it, and a store making sure that merchandise leaving in their cart has been paid for doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
The thing is, people who know how to steal don't put stolen merchandise into their bags or into their carts (a lot of stupid people do put stolen goods into those two places, however, and they sometimes get caught because of it).
In the case of Wal-Mart, their LP's are not allowed to detain you, and once you leave the store, they can't pursue at all. They just call the police.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: I found it weird the police might NOT have a right to ask for your ID
<shudder> And that's how it begins...
Well, keep in mind that Kama grew up in Soviet and post-Soviet controlled Poland; her perspective is pretty natural, I think, when that's taken into consideration.
Ah... no, I hadn't remembered that. Good point.
You could also be operating under the assumption that by producing your ID you are making an officers job that much easier as he can stop focusing on you and get to the problem at hand. I don't think it's an awful POV to have, certainly not worthy of shudders.
I'm probably going to continue producing ID when asked by police officers to do so. I would tell the Circuit City folks to toddle off.
DevilD: Stores have surveillance cameras, security officers, and often times sensors at the door. Is that really not enough? Or more accurately can they impose more measures without infringing on my civil rights?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I don't know how I feel about this. I have a friend who works loss prevention at Wal-Mart. In one month they had over $300,000 in merchandise stolen from the electronics section alone (that's about $10,000 a day, about $416 every hour, just from electronics. try to imagine how many thieves have to walk out the doors every hour to account for this). And here's the scary thing, that figure is low. They get congratulated for only losing that much.
People absolutely steal from stores. Stores should have some way of protecting themselves from theft, and checking bags seems to me like a pretty simple and efficient way to do it. As far as searching your cart goes, the cart belongs to the store, not you. The store is letting you use it, and a store making sure that merchandise leaving in their cart has been paid for doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
The thing is, people who know how to steal don't put stolen merchandise into their bags or into their carts (a lot of stupid people do put stolen goods into those two places, however, and they sometimes get caught because of it).
In the case of Wal-Mart, their LP's are not allowed to detain you, and once you leave the store, they can't pursue at all. They just call the police.
This argument that receipt checking helps loss prevention is transparent. Any loss prevention specialist worth their salt will likely tell you that it's a colossal waste of employee resources to have someone sit at the door and check receipts.
And it makes no difference who owns the cart, unless there's a big sign on the cart saying, "By placing your belongings in this cart you consent to have them searched at any time."
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Huh...they usually just look at my receipt for like 3 seconds if that and just mark it clear and wave me through.
It isn't the actual cart checking that takes me such a long time, it's that there are always 8-12 people in front of me, some of whom don't have their receipts out, some of whom want to chat with the receipt checker, and the fact that the receipt checker gets bored with her menial and mostly useless job and spaces out a lot.
All in all, the extra 5 minutes waiting in line doesn't ruin my day, but it is frustrating and seems like a solution that is unlikely to stop many criminals. I suppose they probably have to search everybody to avoid being sued for discrimination if they only searched someone with a cart full of electronics.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This argument that receipt checking helps loss prevention is transparent. Any loss prevention specialist worth their salt will likely tell you that it's a colossal waste of employee resources to have someone sit at the door and check receipts.
Wrong. It's ineffective at deterring dedicated criminals, but the receipt checkers existing does wonders for helping prevent casual theft. It "helps keep honest people honest."
quote:I don't know how I feel about this. I have a friend who works loss prevention at Wal-Mart. In one month they had over $300,000 in merchandise stolen from the electronics section alone (that's about $10,000 a day, about $416 every hour, just from electronics. try to imagine how many thieves have to walk out the doors every hour to account for this). And here's the scary thing, that figure is low. They get congratulated for only losing that much.
Based on the experiences of myself and a couple friends in LP, that figure is obscenely high. No offense to your friend, but it sounds like Walmart's LP program is pretty horrible.
To contrast, a Radioshack with no security cameras (real or fake), no door sensor or entry alert, no security postings, only two employees working on average (in a store of approximately 1500 sq ft), located in an area with extremely heavy foot traffic {{edit}} where employees had to leave the main floor of the store in order to do stock checks {{end edit}} posted average monthly losses of less than $1,500.
Edit again: Unless, of course, you meant nation-wide, in which case that figure makes sense, given the number of Walmart locations. That figure would also likely include loss stemming from theft occurring outside the stores, e.g. warehouses, loading/unloading and transport.
posted
Yeah, but why would you want to steal anything from Radio Shack? It'd break in an hour and you'd have to steal another one! That's a lotta work!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Wal-Mart states they lose 3 BILLION a year to theft, although 47% of which is due to employees, compared to 32% from shoplifting.
Also, Wal-Mart has gotten out of hand in the past, as mentioned in the article...
quote:In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $750,000 to the family of a suspected shoplifter who suffocated to death in 2005 as loss prevention workers held him down in a parking lot outside a store in Atascocita, Texas.
quote:This argument that receipt checking helps loss prevention is transparent. Any loss prevention specialist worth their salt will likely tell you that it's a colossal waste of employee resources to have someone sit at the door and check receipts.
Wrong. It's ineffective at deterring dedicated criminals, but the receipt checkers existing does wonders for helping prevent casual theft. It "helps keep honest people honest."
Do you have some data that shows that a receipt checker serves as an effective deterrent for 'casual theft'? Also, does anyone have any info about the percentage of thefts? [EDIT: and Nighthawk reads my mind] It's my understanding that the majority of lost revenue from theft is from employees stealing, with criminal types running second and 'casual theft', so to speak, running a distant third.
I disagree that it keeps honest people honest. I think it treats honest people like criminals until they prove otherwise, which doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about that store. I just don't see the business sense in insulting your customers to prevent a nickel's worth of theft while your employees walk off with a dollar's worth.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some interesting numbers regarding Walmart theft.
As of 2005, Walmart had 3800 U.S. locations. As of 2007, their gross income was 351.1 billion dollars, or $92,394,736 per store annually, or $7,699,561 per month gross. The average Walmart makes, net, $247,807 per month. So, assuming that DevilDreamt's store is average (and not, as he implies, exceptional in their LP), Walmart's losses from one department exceeds the entire store's net income.Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
This argument that receipt checking helps loss prevention is transparent. Any loss prevention specialist worth their salt will likely tell you that it's a colossal waste of employee resources to have someone sit at the door and check receipts.
Yeah, about that...
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: The thing is, people who know how to steal don't put stolen merchandise into their bags or into their carts (a lot of stupid people do put stolen goods into those two places, however, and they sometimes get caught because of it).
I agree that it's a waste to have someone there 24/7, especially at a small store. But I agree with erosomniac, that it doesn't stop the dedicated thief but will "help keep honest people honest," which was a much better way to put it. Sort of like how at gas stations, where posting up signs warning that they have security cameras (whether they have them or not) cuts down the number of drive-offs significantly, having someone at the doors every now and then helps deter casual theft, which can add up pretty quickly at a large store.
My mother was an LP at Meijer for 5 years, and from what I've seen, Meijer's LP program was much more successful than what I've been hearing of Wal-Mart's program. Still, when she worked at Meijer, each LP had to make at least $4,000 a month in recoveries. If they failed to meet this quota three times in an 8 month period, they would be fired. The easiest way to meet that quota was to prosecute bad checks, btw. They usually saw between $1,500 and $4,500 every week in bad checks, but some weeks that figure would hit as high as $8,000.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion reminds me of a man I used to see interviewed with some regularity, 10-15 (or possibly more *sigh*) years ago. He was a tall black man, with long dreds--well but unusually dressed. What he would do is go to neighborhoods (middle to upper class, primarily white) neighborhoods, and walk down the street. He wasn’t loitering—he was just walking. Countless times, he’d be stopped by the cops, and countless times, they took him in—-because he certainly fit their criteria for racial profiling. His issue, of course, was that he wasn't breaking any laws. After a while, the cops were just flat out mad at him and would pull him in regardless--harrassment.
Of course, I didn't see any of the COPS interviewed!
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about the ID - I've been asked for ID every single time I've called 911 to report something. I don't think the officer did anything wrong in asking for it, and if I initiated the contact, I would provide my ID.
I do think the officer did something wrong in arresting the guy (assuming the info we have on the law is correct) and likely* did something wrong in misstating the law.
*It might be a store's legal right to inspect bags in Ohio. I doubt it, but it could be. If so, it's a problem to bring to the attention of the legislature.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have some data that shows that a receipt checker serves as an effective deterrent for 'casual theft'?
Not for receipt checkers specifically, but the effectiveness of casual deterrents is very well documented.
quote:Also, does anyone have any info about the percentage of thefts? [EDIT: and Nighthawk reads my mind] It's my understanding that the majority of lost revenue from theft is from employees stealing, with criminal types running second and 'casual theft', so to speak, running a distant third.
Of course, but a loss prevention program is designed to prevent ALL aspects of loss. If having two underpaid employees standing at the building's sole exit inspecting the receipt of everyone that comes out is going to prevent even $80,000 in loss annually in a store of, on average, over 100,000 square feet, they've more than paid for themselves.
quote:I disagree that it keeps honest people honest. I think it treats honest people like criminals until they prove otherwise, which doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about that store. I just don't see the business sense in insulting your customers to prevent a nickel's worth of theft while your employees walk off with a dollar's worth.
This attitude is perplexing to me. What's the sense of insulting your neighbors and all your fellow human beings by putting locks on the doors of your house and car? The vast majority of people are not criminals; the vast majority of Costco's customers are not criminals.
I also don't think you have a good understanding of how complex the internal LP system at major chains is. The security teams and surveillance systems in stores like Walmart, K-Mart and Target are monitoring the customers, sure, but they're primarily there to catch internal theft. The security managers at these stores come into the store when no other employees are there to relocate and conceal hundreds of security cameras so that employees, not customers, will not know where they are. Entire teams of people work at monitoring and tracking employee register behavior looking for anomalies, from the obvious like too much money missing from a till too frequently to the more subtle, like too many receipts filed as accidental loss, mischarges or otherwise voided. Other team members review surveillance footage and sync it up with register activity to ensure that cashiers are not working with non-employees to steal (one of the most common tactics here is to have the employee pretend to scan something, demagnetize the security tag, then put the item in their partner's cart). Other programs and people track return, exchange and warranty service patterns, watching for indications of fraud.
The list goes on, and that's just in the retail stores, to say nothing of programs and employees dedicated to preventing loss in warehousing and transportation.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, about the $300,000 figure, it sounded freakishly high to me as well, but I didn't think to question it. It's possible that 1. My friend (who is actually just a guy I ran track with in high school and hadn't seen in several years and happened to run into while he was working as a detective out on the floor) meant to say 30,000. 2. He simply wildly exaggerated the figure to make it sound impressive.
In the context of the conversation, I had mentioned how my mother had been so astonished when she was a detective at the number of people who stole, and at the types of people who stole, because they were frequently people she never would have suspected to be thieves.
His response was, "Yeah man, people are so dishonest. We had $300,000 stolen just from electronics last month, and that figure is low compared to other stores." Now that I think about it, if he was lying about the figure, that makes his whole statement pretty amusing.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that stores are not public property. But I've never been searched other than at a Costco or similar establishment.
quote: I suppose they probably have to search everybody to avoid being sued for discrimination if they only searched someone with a cart full of electronics.
How is it discrimination to single out someone for buying habits, as opposed to their appearance or what they wear?
Anyway, maybe my responses are revealing all kinds of "dangerous thinking". I'd venture to say that obedient people are not any more dangerous to society than disobedient ones.
Mostly, I think shopping at Wal-mart is a disgusting habit, and complaining about how shoppers are abused is like complaining how hard it is to get the cotton fibers out of heroin.
Who's to say that customers are even obligated to pay for merchandise they are removing, if you want to start screwing with the rules?
Anyway, I guess I kind of had a psychotic break in Home Depot last week so I'm probably not in a great state of mind to be weighing this matter.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
