Arbitrary searches

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:01:02 GMT, "Joe McIntosh"
wrote:


"daytripper"
So it makes some sense that the purpose was actually to guard against some
insider theft scam. Of course, that they'd stop me to catch their own
peeps
only ****es me off even more...

/daytripper (Righteously Indignant)
IJ--was surprised to learn how many problems stores with insider theft.

Local Wall Mart opened and had to replace 30% of their insider cashiers
within a month. They were not scanning some items or changing prices to
benefit their friends. Now the store has mounted small cameras above each
cash register to help eliminate this problem.
Perhaps we should be ****ed off with our citizenry.


What sort of example have the elites set?



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Joe McIntosh wrote:

Local Wall Mart opened and had to replace 30% of their insider cashiers
within a month. They were not scanning some items or changing prices to
benefit their friends. Now the store has mounted small cameras above each
cash register to help eliminate this problem.
Perhaps we should be ****ed off with our citizenry.

This problem could be solved with those radio-frequency-emitting
microchips that are apparently going to start finding their way into all
consumer merchandise (among other things) over the next few years. Done
right, the manufacturer, shipper, and retailer could use the things for
supply chain management, but they would be turned off permanently when
scanned at the register. Any that weren't disabled would set off an
alarm at the exit of the store (and could even be traced afterward).

Trick, of course, is being sure the "turned off permanently" bit is
enforced.

JR

"JR" wrote

more interesting panties to sniff than
ROFF's

in my view, the most lamentable shortcoming of our group...

yfitons
wayno (any recommendations for alternative forums?)

You reckon business will be much harmed now that violation of privacy has
gone from being against the law to BEING the law?
JR
--sure hopin' Mr Ashcroft has more interesting panties to sniff than ROFF's

I'd bet most people will simply roll over and allow their purchases and any
backpacks or handbags they carried into the store to be searched. We've
loudly walked out of various stores that demanded to search or quarantine,
upon entry, Gloria's backpack carried in lieu of a purse. I will no longer
shop at those stores which demand to check my purchases upon exit.

Between the holiday shopping madness and the intrusion upon my privacy, I
won't be visiting any stores except grocery stores until after the New Year.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

wrote
You can demand that they allow you to leave or they can call a cop and
have you arrested and then searched, if I correctly recall the last
time I heard complaints about this procedure (on another newsgroup, a
year or two ago).

If they do that, they'd better be able to explain that they have
reasonable suspicion to believe you have stolen merchandise (surveillance
camera, eyewitness, etc); refusal to allow a search is does not constitute
reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed. If they held me
until police arrived only because I refused to submit to a search I'd sue
them for false arrest.

I do not believe they are empowered to physically
restrain you until you get outside the building and then only on
reasonable suspicion and willingness to call a police officer.

That depends on state law, in most states you have to exit the store
to complete the crime. Here in Colorado, secreting merchandise on your
person completes the crime (they don't have to let you leave the store).

If I, again, recall correctly, the reason they do it is that some of
their checkout persons are dishonest and in league with 'shoppers' to
give them goods at very low prices. This is not _your_ problem, it's
the store's problem and you should not be inconvenienced to solve
their incorrect personnel hiring and retention problems.

The manager of the local Walmart Supercenter told me they suffer
more from employee theft than they do from shoplifting. Serves them right. I
think the local Walmart requires new employees demonstrate a lengthy arrest
record, drug addiction, and a surly attitude (plenty of good reasons to
abuse the customers).

"Wayne Harrison" wrote:

oh, god, i don't know where to start. my entire professional life, for
more
than 30 years, has been involved with the astonishing array of violations
of
privacy by the government and the "private sector"...

Yeah, but it's a lot easier to sue the government for those abuses,
since the fourth amendment only (supposedly) protects the individual from
the state.

"JR" wrote in message
...


--sure hopin' Mr Ashcroft has more interesting panties to sniff than
ROFF's

Well, if our panties ain't interesting enough for Mr. Ashcroft's refined
sensibilities, I can think of several ways to MAKE them so.

Wolfgang
who WILL be shopping at any local establishment found to be searching their
patrons.

"Charlie Wilson" wrote

If they held me
until police arrived only because I refused to submit to a search I'd sue
them for false arrest.

and you'd win.

yfitons
wayno

Greg Pavlov wrote:

Is anyone bothered by stores that automatically
search your purchases on the way out the exit ?
For some reason it really, really bugs me and I
won't buy anything in stores that do, but every once
in a while, like today, I find that one that never did
it before started to without any notice. Several
that did in the past stopped, for some reason. I
wonder if complaints had anything to do with it,
tho I may be the only one who ever did.

I just walk right past them, and if they try to bug me, I invite them to
autocopulate. Here in California, the law is that they have no right to
go through your stuff. If they detain you because they think you have
stolen something, they better be right, because they do it at their
legal peril. For that reason, I haven't very often had to extend the
above mentioned invitation.

Mike

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
mmcgr wrote:
I just walk right past them, and if they try to bug me, I invite them to
autocopulate.

I'll give that a try next time, tho I'll probably
skip the autocopulate part.

More times than not, I'll defer out of courtesy to the poor sap who's drawn
that job; but if I'm feeling particularly confrontational, I just keep
walking & silently dare them to stop me. So far, neither approach has been
a problem.

Joe F.