Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store.
Situation 1) You try to exit best buy after purchasing an item and they try to stop you after refusing to show your receipt. I do not believe they have probable cause to stop you in this case.
Situation 2) You try to exit Costco after purchasing an item and you refuse to show your receipt. By signing your membership agreement and paying your membership fee you have agreed to the conditions Costco imposes on you to shop there. One of these conditions is you show your receipt upon leaving the premises. Despite agreeing, in writing, to show your receipt, you refuse to do so. I believe in this situation, because of the consent already granted and disclosures made, you have given them probable cause to stop you for failing to show your receipt.
If the membership agreement didn't exist, I think Costco would be shit out of luck. But it does, and that's what makes the two situations completely different.
My issue with them is if I took away the drink name and recipe and just look at the designs themselves, the only one people might understand is the Manhattan. It's the same beef I have with a lot of minimalist movie posters done by fan communities. They just tend to use minimalism as an excuse to be lazy whereas if you look at something like Saul Bass's work, he is minimalist and evocative. He produces as a reaction in a viewer.
From his site, the ones I can tell at a glance are the Manhattan, Martini, Bloody Mary. With a better color selection, I'd get the Margarita. I would only get the Old Fashioned because I mistook "Large ice Cube" for the sugar cube, which is apparently represented by a line at the bottom. That's dumb.
Light grey and even lighter grey on a white background is a colour palette choice that demands a tazing.
shryke on
+1
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
i fucking am tired of "millennial" clickbait shitshow articles on fuckface websites like BuzzFeed
I'd be fine if they stayed on BuzzFeed but they're leaking everywhere, first into ads, then shitty sites like weather.com, now into sources of news. CNN's front page features links like "Seriously, who does this on a flight?!" and "Calif. on fire: Must see to believe"
i liked it on Cracked where the articles had substance and weren't just a bunch of lazy GIFS strung together with meme-laden fragments of attention-begging bullshit
This is why Clickhole is the best site on the internet.
My issue with them is if I took away the drink name and recipe and just look at the designs themselves, the only one people might understand is the Manhattan. It's the same beef I have with a lot of minimalist movie posters done by fan communities. They just tend to use minimalism as an excuse to be lazy whereas if you look at something like Saul Bass's work, he is minimalist and evocative. He produces as a reaction in a viewer.
The appeal to me is that the minimalist design reminds me of the minimalist quality of the recipes. The appeal of classic cocktails is their elemental nature - you don't need a lot of ingredients. You just need good quality ingredients in the right proportions.
Yeah but for me the drawings with them doesn't bring anything. I suspect I could get the exact same effect if I removed the drawings and simply had the recipe itself. Perhaps justifying the typeset in the shape of the correct glass. For me, really good minimalist art shouldn't have extraneous flourishes, and the drawings feel extraneous.
Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store.
Situation 1) You try to exit best buy after purchasing an item and they try to stop you after refusing to show your receipt. I do not believe they have probable cause to stop you in this case.
Situation 2) You try to exit Costco after purchasing an item and you refuse to show your receipt. By signing your membership agreement and paying your membership fee you have agreed to the conditions Costco imposes on you to shop there. One of these conditions is you show your receipt upon leaving the premises. Despite agreeing, in writing, to show your receipt, you refuse to do so. I believe in this situation, because of the consent already granted and disclosures made, you have given them probable cause to stop you for failing to show your receipt.
If the membership agreement didn't exist, I think Costco would be shit out of luck. But it does, and that's what makes the two situations completely different.
probable cause of what?
To believe they will find stolen items.
Also do store employees need probable cause to search people leaving the store? I think the much weaker reasonable suspicion is all you need for people entering and exiting private property. Probable cause typically only applies to people in public getting searched by law enforcement.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store.
Situation 1) You try to exit best buy after purchasing an item and they try to stop you after refusing to show your receipt. I do not believe they have probable cause to stop you in this case.
Situation 2) You try to exit Costco after purchasing an item and you refuse to show your receipt. By signing your membership agreement and paying your membership fee you have agreed to the conditions Costco imposes on you to shop there. One of these conditions is you show your receipt upon leaving the premises. Despite agreeing, in writing, to show your receipt, you refuse to do so. I believe in this situation, because of the consent already granted and disclosures made, you have given them probable cause to stop you for failing to show your receipt.
If the membership agreement didn't exist, I think Costco would be shit out of luck. But it does, and that's what makes the two situations completely different.
probable cause of what?
To believe they will find stolen items.
Also do store employees need probable cause to search people leaving the store? I think the much weaker reasonable suspicion is all you need for people entering and exiting private property. Probably cause typically only applies to people in public getting searched by law enforcement.
well private citizens generally can't detain other private citizens. you can trespass someone off your property, sure. costco may have some quasi-law enforcement loss prevention guys that are authorized to detain peeps to which RS and PC would apply.
honestly I don't know. I feel like the employee should be able to say, okay you won't show me your receipt, let me go to the checker you checked out with and confirm your purchase while you wait here or something like that.
then they can terminate his membership for being a dick.
honestly I don't know. I feel like the employee should be able to say, okay you won't show me your receipt, let me go to the checker you checked out with and confirm your purchase while you wait here or something like that.
honestly I don't know. I feel like the employee should be able to say, okay you won't show me your receipt, let me go to the checker you checked out with and confirm your purchase while you wait here or something like that.
*walks away*
following to your car and callin da cops!
also most states probably have some sort of statute like the one I just linked that says they can detain
The owner or lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner or lessee who has probable cause to believe that the person has violated ORS
A motion picture theater? You mean where they show talkies?
I've been to many stores where I've been asked to show a receipt when I'm leaving. Hell, I've been a receipt checker a few times. This was in the 90s so its not a new practice. If you have a store that is literally hundreds of thousands of square feet, with hundreds of customers its not practical to visually see if someone has paid for their stuff. So they have someone check your receipt for like 15 seconds and then let you proceed.
By the quoted story, the employee grabbed the cart. Even if you don't believe the store can stop you from leaving, they could surely prevent you from taking a cart. At best convention calls for the store to allow you to use the cart to load your car, and the same convention would require him to allow his receipt to be checked. The guy used violence on one employee and then violence was used on him. I don't have too much sympathy.
Do you think the employee would have done nothing if he had started taking the bags to his car instead of using the cart to push them there?
Speculating on a hypothetical based largely on one man's side of the story is rarely fruitful. By his own version of events, he was in the wrong and the store employee was within his rights to stop the cart from leaving the store.
But in the specific case of Costco, he has a written agreement that compels him to allow a search and to detain him in this situation.
The purpose of stopping the cart to leave the store was to prevent the guy from leaving the store with the goods he had purchased, not to merely deprive him of the use of the cart as tit for tat.
So?
The intention of the person is usually very relevant in these situations. The employee's purpose was to detain the person, not merely deprive him of use of the cart to force him to take the bags to the car without use of the cart.
Intent is irrelevant barring criminality. You have to establish the existence of a crime or otherwise impermissible act first. You're starting from the position that they did something wrong and trying to justify it. The man was not prevented from leaving by his own story and then used violence against an employee. He thought the rules didn't apply to him and then tried to remove the employee from the cart violently. Distrust of business interests shouldn't make one blindly oppose everything they might do.
The owner or lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner or lessee who has probable cause to believe that the person has violated ORS
A motion picture theater? You mean where they show talkies?
It's weird how these days they're called movies and not talkies.
The owner or lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner or lessee who has probable cause to believe that the person has violated ORS
A motion picture theater? You mean where they show talkies?
It's weird how these days they're called movies and not talkies.
I just like that the law says "motion picture theater", like it was written in the 30s.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
2015 marvel heroes characters are officially:
Kitty Pryde, She-Hulk, Black Cat, War Machine, Blade, Dr. Doom, Winter Soldier, Bobby Drake, Vision, and Iron Fist
Kitty Pryde, She-Hulk, Black Cat, War Machine, Blade, Dr. Doom, Winter Soldier, Bobby Drake, Vision, and Iron Fist
X-23 comes out end of this year
so many girl heroes
You keep talking about this game, and I'll have to start playing.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
This hardware from China requires that I send it commands in TCP packets but if I don't hack my TCP code to preserve message boundaries (one packet = one command), it fails.
I hope this gives some networking programmer lurker an aneurism. Need to share this misery.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I've been to many stores where I've been asked to show a receipt when I'm leaving. Hell, I've been a receipt checker a few times. This was in the 90s so its not a new practice. If you have a store that is literally hundreds of thousands of square feet, with hundreds of customers its not practical to visually see if someone has paid for their stuff. So they have someone check your receipt for like 15 seconds and then let you proceed.
By the quoted story, the employee grabbed the cart. Even if you don't believe the store can stop you from leaving, they could surely prevent you from taking a cart. At best convention calls for the store to allow you to use the cart to load your car, and the same convention would require him to allow his receipt to be checked. The guy used violence on one employee and then violence was used on him. I don't have too much sympathy.
Do you think the employee would have done nothing if he had started taking the bags to his car instead of using the cart to push them there?
Speculating on a hypothetical based largely on one man's side of the story is rarely fruitful. By his own version of events, he was in the wrong and the store employee was within his rights to stop the cart from leaving the store.
But in the specific case of Costco, he has a written agreement that compels him to allow a search and to detain him in this situation.
The purpose of stopping the cart to leave the store was to prevent the guy from leaving the store with the goods he had purchased, not to merely deprive him of the use of the cart as tit for tat.
So?
The intention of the person is usually very relevant in these situations. The employee's purpose was to detain the person, not merely deprive him of use of the cart to force him to take the bags to the car without use of the cart.
Intent is irrelevant barring criminality. You have to establish the existence of a crime or otherwise impermissible act first. You're starting from the position that they did something wrong and trying to justify it. The man was not prevented from leaving by his own story and then used violence against an employee. He thought the rules didn't apply to him and then tried to remove the employee from the cart violently. Distrust of business interests shouldn't make one blindly oppose everything they might do.
A person doesn't have to be physically restrained to be detained. Withholding valuables from a person can detain that person and that was the employee's purpose.
My issue with them is if I took away the drink name and recipe and just look at the designs themselves, the only one people might understand is the Manhattan. It's the same beef I have with a lot of minimalist movie posters done by fan communities. They just tend to use minimalism as an excuse to be lazy whereas if you look at something like Saul Bass's work, he is minimalist and evocative. He produces as a reaction in a viewer.
The appeal to me is that the minimalist design reminds me of the minimalist quality of the recipes. The appeal of classic cocktails is their elemental nature - you don't need a lot of ingredients. You just need good quality ingredients in the right proportions.
Yeah but for me the drawings with them doesn't bring anything. I suspect I could get the exact same effect if I removed the drawings and simply had the recipe itself. Perhaps justifying the typeset in the shape of the correct glass. For me, really good minimalist art shouldn't have extraneous flourishes, and the drawings feel extraneous.
get a typewriter, double spaced lines, type recipes, done
Posts
probable cause of what?
Light grey and even lighter grey on a white background is a colour palette choice that demands a tazing.
This is why Clickhole is the best site on the internet.
http://www.clickhole.com/article/we-asked-22-women-what-bats-taste-and-most-them-di-1011
Yeah but for me the drawings with them doesn't bring anything. I suspect I could get the exact same effect if I removed the drawings and simply had the recipe itself. Perhaps justifying the typeset in the shape of the correct glass. For me, really good minimalist art shouldn't have extraneous flourishes, and the drawings feel extraneous.
This is a strange mole hill to want to die on.
Either not showing your receipt when asked is probable cause to detain for theft or it isn't
The fuck?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
self-checkout machines plz i'm terrified of human interaction
You've never had one of my daiquiris. Im not talking TGIFriday Corn Syrup Mix Bullshit.
: (
I will not batsignal IcyLiquid
I will not batsignal IcyLiquid
I will not batsignal IcyLiquid
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
To believe they will find stolen items.
Also do store employees need probable cause to search people leaving the store? I think the much weaker reasonable suspicion is all you need for people entering and exiting private property. Probable cause typically only applies to people in public getting searched by law enforcement.
ye olde style is civilzation
ye olde style is living in the past
well private citizens generally can't detain other private citizens. you can trespass someone off your property, sure. costco may have some quasi-law enforcement loss prevention guys that are authorized to detain peeps to which RS and PC would apply.
honestly I don't know. I feel like the employee should be able to say, okay you won't show me your receipt, let me go to the checker you checked out with and confirm your purchase while you wait here or something like that.
then they can terminate his membership for being a dick.
mmm past glorious civilization
seriously the new one hurts me eyes
they're stacking geometric shapes without any artful composition or colour choice
they look like ugly things from the 70s that someone would have on their wall above a bank of half-egg chairs
i've always hated you, feral
*walks away*
I've just become accustomed to it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.655
so there ya go
following to your car and callin da cops!
also most states probably have some sort of statute like the one I just linked that says they can detain
Fine.
More egg chairs for me then
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A motion picture theater? You mean where they show talkies?
Intent is irrelevant barring criminality. You have to establish the existence of a crime or otherwise impermissible act first. You're starting from the position that they did something wrong and trying to justify it. The man was not prevented from leaving by his own story and then used violence against an employee. He thought the rules didn't apply to him and then tried to remove the employee from the cart violently. Distrust of business interests shouldn't make one blindly oppose everything they might do.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's weird how these days they're called movies and not talkies.
http://img.pandawhale.com/94150-live-in-the-now-gif-Waynes-Wor-dW2T.gif
I just like that the law says "motion picture theater", like it was written in the 30s.
Kitty Pryde, She-Hulk, Black Cat, War Machine, Blade, Dr. Doom, Winter Soldier, Bobby Drake, Vision, and Iron Fist
X-23 comes out end of this year
so many girl heroes
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
@Gooey
You keep talking about this game, and I'll have to start playing.
I hope this gives some networking programmer lurker an aneurism. Need to share this misery.
noooo that's what he waaaaants
A person doesn't have to be physically restrained to be detained. Withholding valuables from a person can detain that person and that was the employee's purpose.
get a typewriter, double spaced lines, type recipes, done