OT: Standing Up For What's Right - Against Circuit City and the local Police

[Thomas Rogers]

Read this guys blog (below)...great stuff...here is a snippet from Slashdot:

"Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."

This all happened in Brooklyn, Ohio.



A Ohio story against a big box store, against the local police, and for the little guy's rights....Caymen, where are you?



TJR

 

[FlipTrac_511]

...or he could've just showed his receipt and license.



But there's probably more to it than that.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Good for this guy-- standing up to the oppression.

 

[Woppy V]

i dunno what anyone else is reading.... but all i picked up on was someone having a really crappy day!

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

He got exactly what he deserved. He refuesd to show identificiation that he had on him. A police officer needs to know who he is dealing with for Officer Saftey. That story has to be twisted by the media somehow. OF course, everyone will take shots at h ow a cop does his or her job and everyone thinks they know a cops job in and out

 

[Richard Toms]

According to the law for the license and receipt, he had the right not to show either. I understand the CC guys were doing there job as rightfully as they could, but they had no business taking the law into there hands as in stopping the vehicle and permitting it from not going anywhere. The officer on the case, yes, does have the permission to ask for the license, but can't necessary charge you with not giving it to him, since the name was given to him. Specially since this guy wasn't operating a motor vehicle. I know giving the license makes it easier for him. But accordingly to the law, he doesn't have the right. Now charging him with obstructing official business is just a charge they through out there, b/c they had nothing else to say he did. This guy in turn, based on his story, didn't obstruct official business b/c he was rightfully according to law, following the rules.



More than likely, the charges will be dropped. CC will be looking into the fact that this guy knew his stuff about law and will try to give some money to him just to keep the man as a customer. And might bring up charges on the 2 workers that, were just doing there job as best as they could.

 

[Jeff C]

He got exactly what he deserved.

How so? He followed the law. The other people involved were making up laws as they went along. He said his name. That's all the law requires. If it's wrong, it should be changed...

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

I agree that the loss prevention individuals should not have stopped the car and prevented it from leaving. Thats just stupidity and placing themselves in a situation that couldve ended badly. However, this guy having identification on him and refusing to give it to the cop is just being a prick to the cop (like most people are to us). Now i dont know what the law is in Ohio about showing proof of IDENTITY. Maybe just given a name is enough to run through NCIC and if it comes back to match his story than maybe thats good enough. I know there are states out there that you can be arrested for doing what he did and thats how it should be. I have apprehended a few people in my career for failure to provide identification. Granted my Jurisdiction is on base and when i was in germany and did have off base jurisdiction we were very limited by SOFA anyway

 

[EddieS'04]

This is the USA not a police state or a government entity. You young guys just keep on saying thats ok, I wasnt doing anything wrong. One day you will wakeup and say what the F**k did I ever give in to something I had a right to.

Keep on saying good morning. I bet some of the older guys know exactly what I mean. Suppresion of liberty only come because you allow it.

 

[Rick Kent]

This falls under the category of "know when to pick your battles".



Showing a receipt when asked the first time, 3 seconds. His experience, several hours if not longer.



That said, I have to think there is more to this story than what is printed.

 

[Wes Davis]

I am a gun owner and frequent many gun owners forums. This type of stuff comes up all the time. Especially in the 'open carry' states. For those of you that are unfamiliar different states have different laws in regards to carrying a firearm on your person. Some require licenses, some do not. Some require you carry concealed, some require you carry in the open. In 'open carry' states it is very common for you to be stopped by a police officer and questioned about your identity and intentions with your firearm. Basically this is illegal. If you are a hardliner in personal regards to your given rights then you don't answer any questions and you don't provide any information other than verbally giving your name. If you are like me then you cooperate, have a polite discussion and go about your way. Let me tell you there are groups of people out there that get very heated over these types of situations.

 

[Mike Roncarati]

He may have been "following the law", but come on, he was being a prick to the cop. Should have just shown the officer his identification, and the receipt. That would have been more of a "screw you" to the loss prevention guys. I believe in standing up for what's right, but seriously, the cop wasn't out to get him.

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

Fast Eddie you post has no sence to it at all. What is the suppression of liberty by identifying yourself to a police officer. A police officer has the right to ask for identification in order to properly pursue his/her investigation. A police officer has the right to ask for identification to run an individual through a criminal history check. If you refuse to provide ID and your name and address can not be verified you will be detained, searched and placed in a holding cell until your information canbe verified.

 

[Richard Toms]

I agree with what Alan says.



Except, according to the law, if a person isn't operating a motor vehicle and a person denies access to that card (if they have one), then it could only be considered "obstructing official business" if the name given doesn't match the address supplied. But in this story, so says the guy, the officer never asked for the name, address or DOB, only for the ID.



Yes, the guy could have been nice and just went on his merry way, showed his bag and receipt to CC and the license to the officer. But Under Civil Rights, he did what was right and followed the law to the extent to which it is.



(oh yeah, I know nothing about law or police... just basing everything on the story with the facts supplied)

 

[Wes Davis]

Watch this, its really got everybody going.

 

[Dingo]

Under GA law, once I pass the last point of purchase of a store, anything I have is mine and I don't have to show anything.



I'm not saying I wouldn't, as being slowed by 3 seconds on my departure isn't that big of a deal, but the point is still there.

 

[Joe G 2]

I have been in police related work my entire life. Currently I am a police officer in the Air Force. All Im going to say is this...Everyone wants to gripe and complain about how a cop does business when they are the one in question. When something happens and they need our assistance however, they want us to do whatever it takes to get the end result they want. And as far as the media and police business...The only thing the media twist/turns/f*#@'s up more than police related stories is military stories.



Personally, I am more concerned with the acts of the store manager and the loss prevention officer. Not only are they in their companies violation of stoping someone like that, or the fact that they legally could be pursued for such an act, but rather the stupidity of using yourself as a physical barrier with an automobile.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

alan beaulieu said:

However, this guy having identification on him and refusing to give it to the cop is just being a prick to the cop (like most people are to us).

and

However, this guy having identification on him and refusing to give it to the cop is just being a prick to the cop (like most people are to us).

I understand your point, and agree with it to a certain degree.



However, I'm pretty sure in all states no one is required to show license/identification if they are not operating a motor vehicle, and/or if they are not being charged with something.



No one should be required to show identification simply because an officer wants to see it.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Me said:

In 'open carry' states it is very common for you to be stopped by a police officer and questioned about your identity and intentions with your firearm. Basically this is illegal.

I don't see how it is illegal. If a police officer sees you carrying a handgun in public, which is a privilege NOT a right as many would have you think, then they can spot check your permit, identity, etc.



The same is done by police at various license and registration checkpoints that get set up randomly on streets, often on the weekend. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so its all legal.



Of course, many will claim we have a right to gun ownership, and I won't debate that, but that right comes with privileges, obligations and regulations; and the privilege of carrying a gun in public is one of them.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

Alan, you dont get it because you are GI cop. We are talking civlian liberties here. I think what I said will make alot of sense to you someday.