willard

Dang, Kallend, that's twice in the last few weeks we agreed on something. I wonder if the stars are in some kind of funky alignment?

I had actually started skydiving as a way to get into BASE, but then I found out that a large percentage of the people in BASE are egomaniacs who don't respect private property or even public property where jumping is prohibited. Most are not like that, but enough are that I decided I didn't want to be a part of that crowd.

I never said they are 100% correct anymore than I said they are 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking care of simple legalities on your own, but when your freedom is on the line only a fool would go it alone without the benefit of at least consulting an attorney. And no, I don't trust everything a doctor tells me. Three of them missdiagnosed me when I broke my back.

I agree with that 100% and congratulate you on having success in representing yourself. However, yours is an exception and the majority of the population, by far, is better off paying for their legal services. To go with that, it is virtually impossible for anyone here in this forum to have studied this case sufficiently to make a call as to what statutes apply and in what way since the only information available to us is the kids story. We don't even know if it agrees with his official statement, if any, that he gave the police nor do we have statements from the CC folk, the arresting officer, or any other witnesses. We just don't know everything that went on. Maybe the kid was messing with the receipt-checker-guy and acted like he was hiding something under his shirt when he went past, just as a joke. Maybe he said something to him that he hasn't relayed in his story made public. For someone to say that there is no way they had probable cause to stop him, without knowing all the facts, is ignorance at best. On that I'm sure you will agree. Even in court it is not up to the defendent or plaintiff to decide what is or isn't probable cause, only to try to persuade the judge in the case to decide in their favor. That decision is up to the judge and/or jury.

Uhh, yeah. Ok. Whatever you say. Now put down the law books and go back to whatever you were doing before you hurt someone. I would strongly suggest you do one thing I always do-when in need of legal advice, consult an attorney. "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system. Pointless to argue once you've crossed that line. Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix! Or maybe you just slept at a Holiday Inn Express. What a retarded position. You're suggesting that unless a person is a lawyer, they don't have any ability to interpret, or understand the laws that govern them? How short sighted. If you're a lawyer, it's a pretty snobbish attitude. No, I am not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be. Lawyers-regardless of what you think of them-spend years studyingthe legal system, it's laws and procedures, how to use them, and how they are interpreted. For someone to read a website and think they know everything about as retarded as someone reading a med book and thinking they can perform an operation. There is a reason people must be licensed to practice law in this country.

And who is he? Hmmm, wasn't he the guy that should have had it? I could tell you to just read the book but I won't. The President’s authorization codes are on a small card he carries with him. The detailed attack messages—the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) are in the “football”. It was the card with his authorization codes that Clinton hard trouble hanging onto.

Cite, please. I have no proof but I've heard Bush keeps losing his Top Secret Spy Decoder Ring. "Dereliction of Duty" by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson.

Seems our country has a hard time keeping track of this stuff. Bill Clinton would lose the top secret nuclear weapon launch codes on occasion. Not quite as scary as missing nukes, but darn close.

Have you ever looked in the (C)? Nope. I just blindly post stuff and hope it is in some way related to the thread. Of course I looked. (C) An officer, agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or employee or agent of a merchant pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes: (1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft; (2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer; (3) To obtain a warrant of arrest. Relevent sections in bold. As you see, the law does not grant the permission to detain someone just to ensure there is no property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft. That is your interpretation which, by the way, means nothing since you are not involved in the disposition of this case and even less since you are not a lawyer. No, it will not, because the store employee told him explicitly that he does not accuse him of anything. This obviously meant he did not have a probable cause. Otherwise he would tell him plain straight that he had probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by this person. Uh, excuse me, but that is the Judges job-to determine whether or not CC had cause to detain him. It's not the kid's call. I bet he did, because he asked right questions. The better question, IMHO, would be to ask directly about whether they have a reasonable case to believe I stole anything, and if they do, ask them to call a police. Personally I'd have no more reasons to trust the store employee than they have reasons to trust me - what if the store employee puts something in my bag during "comparing the list of items"? I'm betting he didn't or he would have shown them his receipt to prove he didn't take anything instead of playing Mr. Anti-Establishment and make a big stink over nothing. The biggest mistake the kid made was trying to play lawyer. Same thing you're doing. Me? I just post how I see it without claiming to know how the legal system will play out. I also tend to doubt some things in his story and suspect the versions told by CC and the officer will differ from his as to his conduct.

It is always nice when the opponent starts talking about your person instead of what you said. In most cases this means the opponent is smart, has a lot of arguments, and obviously has something to say :P No, what it means is that you find a website where you can look up statutes and suddenly you think you know the ins and outs of the legal system. Pointless to argue once you've crossed that line. Hey! Why not grab a medical book and remove your own appendix! Or maybe you just slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

We've had hundreds of threads describing how GWB is an incompetent power hungry warmonger. And every one of them just a matter of opinion, and we all know what opinions are worth.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041 2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution. (A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity. I guess a judge will have to determine whether the kids actions, i.e. refusing to show a receipt and then getting into a car waiting for him right outside the door w/engine running and a driver, would give the CC folk probable cause to believe he had illegally taken goods from their store. I bet the kid didn't know about that little statute when he walked out of the store.

Be glad he's leaving after the summit. We have to put up with that BS all the time regardless of who is President. Question is, when does the cost in dollars and disruption to normal life exceed any benefit to a visit by any President? It makes no sense to me to spend literally millions for security, etc. for a Pres. to fly across the country to attend a fundraiser that may bring in $500,000. Keep in mind that all of this is done by both Repubs and Dems.

What if you bought it used and had it shipped? Say, send a friend here the funds to buy it then sell it to you for, say $10. How would they treat that as far as inort duties and such?

And here's another great quote from some old guy: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Benjamin Franklin I read that on the web site. To me it is just the ravings of someone who doesn't like society and thinks anyone who plays by the rules is a mindless mole. Sorry, but most people in the circles I spend my time in tend to be somewhere in between. They are law abiding citizens who know that not all battles are worth fighting and the time and place to fight those that are worth fighting should be chosen, if possible, to give one the most advantage. The person who wrote that is most likely the type who would refuse to stand and allow you to pass to get to your seat at a ball game just because you have no right to make him. Nice quote by ol' Ben. But I've said it before and I'll say it again....he had his head up his ass that day. In any civilized society in which people have rights, it is necessary, from time to time, for each citizen to temporarily relax their hold on one or more of those rights for the sake of others and society as a whole. You give up the liberty to burn old tires and society is better off for it. You give up the freedom to shoot your guns in a residential area at 3:00 AM so that others may sleep. CC did not violate a single right of the kids while he was in the store. They did when he was in the parking lot. When a cop asks for a drivers license you don't have to show it. You can use some other form of ID that he will accept (I used my private pilot license once) or you can make things difficult and refuse, which is within your rights, but the cop has the right and, depending on the situation, the duty to verify your identification. This can take a while and may get you hauled downtown.

Ah yes, another self-educated lawyer. Pointless to argue with those!

Right you are. I should have been more specific and stated that it is nearly impossible.

So just what is your point in all this? That shoplifting is possible? Of course it is. That The stores can do more to stop it? Yep, but you won't like the increase in prices to pay for the extra security. Maybe your point is that no rights were violated when they asked to see his receipt? Agreed. But then why are so many here bitching about it? Checking a receipt agaist the contents of the bag is not a search but a verification that all that was paid for is there and nothing more. Don't want to go through that? Don't shop there. Lots of stores around, most don't check receipts. As for me, I'm not a whiny little snot nose crying because the mean man asked to see my receipt.

C'mon, Bill. Sure it was "live", but it wasn't armed. You know as well as I that an unarmed nuke is impossible to set off. The worst that could happen would be the plane crashed in a populated are and the radioactive elements were exposed, the same risk that is taken every day. But it was a HUGE fuck-up!!!

The merchanidse cannot be in his bag, because this bag was just given to him by the cashier, and supposed to contain only things he paid for (or the cashier was satisfactory explainted he brought them with him - this is the case if the merchanidze is in open). So, as I said, the receipt inspection would not prevent anything like that. It only could prevent the "crook cashier" plan, but it is not my problem if a store hires crook cashiers. Ok, I guess you need it spelled out. Listen closely now! Man makes his way through checkout line, pays for items rung up by cashier, takes his receipt and bag and makes his way toward the door. He notices the greeter.receipt checker is busy and nobody is watching so he grabs an item off the shelves he passes on his way to the door. He gets to the door and the receipt checker guy asks, "May I see your receipt, please". Another scenario is when someone takes a Wal-Mart bag into Wal-Mart, fills it with stuff, waits for the right time and heads for the door. I have done something very similar many times when I have paid for my stuff at the electronics department and walked freely past the cashiers and out the front door without anyone checking to see if I had indeed paid for what I was carrying. I hope that is clear enough for you to see how Mr. Receipt -Checker-Guy can help prevent theft.

But only if you aren't getting drilled in the ass because you bent over to tie your shoe while they were checking your receipt.

It is their Store. Their rules. Wrong. Their rules cannot violate the law or my rights. That's a fact, and calling it "liberal bullshit" does not make it false. I am not a liberal, by the way. You call it a verification, I call it a search. Maybe next they can come out to the car and 'verify' you have nothing stolen in your trunk. And I don't know what the fuck personal responsibility has to do with this. You think that they have the right to search your bag of your property that you own, and I think they DO NOT have that right. I think they should use cameras and security people to catch crooks and leave the innocents to go about their business. And I will shop where I want, thank you very much. It's private property. You give up certain rights when you enter private property. You have the right to piss on your rug in your home but not at someone elses unless they give you that right. You have the right against unlawful search, but asking for or even requiring a receipt is not a search. Once again, it is private property. You don't have the right to be there unless you abide by their rules. Your rules mean nothing when on their property. Don't like it? To bad. Go get some cheese to go with your whining.

Asking to show your receipt is not against the law. Requiring to show your receipt may or may not be, I don't know. But if it is legal, then what are going to do?

Now that just makes too much sense!