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

[Dre L]

The receipt at the door thing:



Wal-Mart

BJ's

BB

CC

Home Depot

Lowes



I'm sure I've encountered more, just can't remember right now. It is pretty common around these parts.



Just curious, what does everyone think about Ron Paul?

 

[Mike Hyde]

I've been in law enforcement for 30 yearst's amazing to me how many people "know" the law when they really don't. Several posts on this subject bring up some good points about our freedoms and liberty's and rights, but without both sides of the story it's hard to say who's right or wrong.



Reading Righi's blog, the bottom line is he brought all this on himself on purpose, possibly for personal gain. He could have avoided all this by simply stopping to let the store employee see his receipt, which he admits he choose not to do, but which the store has a right to ask for, or after the officer arrived show him his license and his reciept. In his blog he says he's not a shoplifter. If he won't show the store clerk or the officer his receipt, how would they know? It doesn't say in his story if the security alarms at the doors were set off when he walked out of the store.



Righi, for what ever reason, was being a jerk. None the less, the CC guys were in the wrong by stopping him in the parking lot, not only did they not have the authority once Righi left the store, but it was pretty dangerous and stupid. They should have been good witnesses once he left the store and obtain a description of the car his was in along with the license plate number. Then they should have called police.



Was the officer wrong or over stepping his authority, possibly. I can't speak towards Ohio law for the charges that were filed. But here in Texas, you can be arrested for not identifying yourself to a police officer under certain circumstances, even if your a witness or a victim. It's called Failure to Identify. Giving just your name is not enough, you must also provide your address or date of birth. From the blog it seems Ohio has a similar law. As a police officer I find it hard to believe the Ohio officer didn't inform Righi of this requirement. But, he may not have. The reason police officers routinely ask for a driver's license because it's a universally accepted form of identiication, issued by a regulating [read government] agency where you must provide proof of identity to get your license. And, it has all the pertinent information the officer needs. While Righi was not compelled by Ohio law to produce his driver's license, he is compelled to give more than just his name.



It doesn't matter who called the police in this incident. When the officer arrived, he was on an investigation to see if a crime had been committed and he had the authority to question Righi and the store employees, encluding asking for their identities. Depending on what actually happened in the store Righi may have been regarded as a suspect. But once he was in his father's car in the parking lot and the store employees stopped the car from leaving, his father was the victim not Righi, he was then just a passenger/witness. His father could have pressed criminal charges against the store employees.



The bottom line is, the situation was not handled was well by all parties involved and each have some culpable responsiblility. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome is.

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

Wow, i went to sleep a littl early and wake up and this post has really blown up. Alrighty where to begin.



First of all NELSONOKC you are obviosuly in a "corporate" air force career field and know nothing about my job as Security Forces. Granted, we dont have jurisdiction outside of the gates unless it is to stop a serious offense and in us not stopping them would endanger public saftey. "Your job is very important to the military and I respect what you do, but wearing a badge and driving a car that looks like a policeman's doesn't make you one." How do you try and say that you respect our job and than turn around and finish that line with that last part. Thats idiotic. Air Force COPS have died on traffic stops, have gotten stabbed during normal duties like building checks. I have recieved a lot of training from civillian departments i have been stationed near. Civillain cops respond to a lot of the same things that we do. Domesticts, fights, drugs, child porn, child molestation, drugs, rapes, drunk/disorderly, shopliftings, failure to obey, failure to identify, traffic stops, high risk stops, DUI, DWI , Minor vehicle accidents, Major vehicle accidents, and many more. Just because we are doing Law Enforcement on an Air Force base does not make our job any harder or easier that civillain cops. Vogelweh Air Base is a little known base about 5 minutes away from Ramstein Air Base. The Air Force Cops there have jurisdiction from Paris to Fraknfurt.

I think you need to research what the security forces career field actually does. NOT ONLY do we h ave Law Enforcement, we also have the responsibility of defending the rest of the base (Air Base Defense) as well as protecting the Air Forces people and resources (Security) I dont know what CORPORATE Air Force job you are doing but i quarantee you, you havent seen some of the stuff ive seen since ive been doing law enforcement in the air force. Ive seen fatalities from major vehicle accidents on the autobahn. Ive seen the emotional aftermath of what happens when people get raped (male and female) I had to do a case a Ramstein where an Airman was molesting his own daughter and had pictures, numerous DUI's, and many more.



So PLEASE next time you want to go ahead and try and downplay the job as Security Forces do some h omework first. This is not a totality of the Security FOrces job and career field by any means. If you would like i can write you an email describing in detail what we do not only on a daily basis, not only how important we are to the mission but how much LE we actually do and how much we help people. Thank you

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

 

[Alan Beaulieu]

Another thing. Identifying yourself to an officer is not something you can "cop a lawyer on" The only time an officer HAS to stop asking questions is when you say "i want a laywer" If you are being questioned about something but they are not self incriminating questions than he can ask whatever he wants. Officers are legally bounded prior to asking self incriminating questions to advise you of your rights. After your rights are read if you want a lawyer thats when you can use that line. Identifying yourself to police is not protected under that. You have an obligation to identify yourself to a police officer so he/she may further investigate the case.



I think the case in Ohio is missing some key information. It seems way to vaque. Anytime i hear a story about a cop misusing his or her power they are always vaque stories and almost all of the time. Some or all of the story is missing.



I do agree there are cops out there that take it to far. I think there are some cops out there that have forgotten that a lot of the job is helping people and they have forgotten not only how to deal with people that have committed crimes they have forgotten how to talk to people with respect in general. Some cops go out there and they just want to talk down to people and cite them for every little infraction or arrest for anything they can. I personally think thats wrong. We need to be out there within the society talking to people, conversing on a daily basis. Not every traffic stops warrants a ticket, not every call warrants an arrest. Depends on the totality of the circumstances.



But what do i know im just a "GI Cop" as Fast Eddie put it in this blog.

 

[Richard Toms]

This topic shot way out on the wall. I understand there are those of us in the same career as this officer and some might be in the shoes of the CC guys. But all of us are in the shoes of the customer, and I'm glad this guy stood up for himself. Shows what rights we all have, even if we've forgot them and need to relearn it.



After reading everything on this page and also reading on the one about the CC as well as the one at BB. I spotted around to the local papers online to see if there was any "real" news besides what has been written in the blogs. Didn't find or see any news about anything. You know, the SUPER WILD PART, if this was considered a "race or sex or religion" I believe this matter would have hit the papers hard or something greater nationally. But b/c it came down to a guy who knew his rights, and laws, it came out as something so odd and bad. Though, its not the first time. And I highly doubt it will be the last time. But least we all learn something new. Which is always good to know. I thank that guy for standing up for his self, myself and the rest of the U.S..

 

[Michael Sugarman]

I don't like showing my receipts either. Of course, the only place I encounter that requirement is Wal Mart. And, that is another reason I try not to shop there. If I do, I purposely make the "checker" chase after me to ask for the receipt. I also ask why they want to see it.



I am not a thief and I don't like being treated like one. The people that want to steal are going to do it. Why check my receipt? I'm with the Righti guy. However, after the police arrived I would have been more than courteous and asked for an incident report to take to my lawyer when I sued the store for number of offenses.

 

[Johnny O]

The receipt at the door thing:



Wal-Mart

BJ's

BB

CC

Home Depot

Lowes

I don't really mind if they check EVERYBODY. But if they want to single people out, then they should have probably cause.

 

[George C]

If he was the one that called the police and initially asked for their help why is he refusing to show id? That part is wrong.



George

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mike H said:

Reading Righi's blog, the bottom line is he brought all this on himself on purpose, possibly for personal gain. He could have avoided all this by simply stopping to let the store employee see his receipt, which he admits he choose not to do, but which the store has a right to ask for, or after the officer arrived show him his license and his reciept. In his blog he says he's not a shoplifter. If he won't show the store clerk or the officer his receipt, how would they know? It doesn't say in his story if the security alarms at the doors were set off when he walked out of the store.

Mike, if we are to believe what Righi has written in his blog, and as I have said, there is no reason not to (or to, for that matter, but let's assume for a second he tells it as it was), then I think you are incorrect.



In his blog Righi indicates that he was not accused of anything by the store manager. He was asked to show his receipt. Yeah, he probably looked a little like a knob by simply not complying with the manager, and then the police. But without any accusation of wrong-doing by either, then Righi shouldn't be expected to provide anything.



In general, I think Righi took a "put up or shut up" attitude with both the manager and the police. He more or less said: "Accuse me of something and I will comply or let me go about my business!"



I see nothing wrong with that.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mike H also said:

But here in Texas, you can be arrested for not identifying yourself to a police officer under certain circumstances, even if your a witness or a victim. It's called Failure to Identify. Giving just your name is not enough, you must also provide your address or date of birth. From the blog it seems Ohio has a similar law. As a police officer I find it hard to believe the Ohio officer didn't inform Righi of this requirement. But, he may not have.

Righi mentioned all that in his blog. I would suspect that most states have laws that require that you give your name, address, and such. But as Righi said in his blog, and others said on this site, identifying yourself *AND* providing identification are two different things. One doesn't LEGALLY have to carry and present ID, unless they are doing something that requires it...say like driving a car, or filing out government paperwork, etc. What if Righi lied and said "I don't have any identification on me?" The policeman would have simply had to believe him and taken whatever info he could give him on face value...which is what he SHOULD have done anyway, because he had no legal basis to require his identification papers.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Mke H, I recommend you read the Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. Texas (link below).



The Texas law you are referring to was found to be unconstitutional when applied to someone who is not reasonably suspected of a crime. Specifically, the court considered it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.



Those of you arguing that the guy is somehow responsible to comply with the store or the police officer are missing something: In our society, unless suspected of a crime on reasonable grounds, the government cannot interfere with you, demand answers of you, arrest you, etc. Read the words of the 4th Amendment. They mean what they say.



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Mike, you should also recognize that, based on Righli's blog account, the officer conducted an illegal Terry stop: Removing Righli's wallet from his pocket is also a 4th Amendment violation. The officer is allowed to pat him down for weapons, but is not allowed to remove anything other than suspected weapons or dangerous objects from him.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, again, very good info.



What I don't get here is a general attitude by some that it is okay to be asked to show ID when not accused of any wrong-doing.



It's bizarre that one would even think anything to the contrary.



IMHO, one doesn't need to know the Constitutition or the various state laws to know that being asked questions like "Who are you?" or "What are you doing?"; or being told to "Show your ID!", when you have done nothing wrong (and more importantly not being accused of any wrong-doing) is simply WRONG, and not something we should tolerate.



TJR

 

[TomT]

They should have "tazed" him.



ps. The true reason for checking receipts is not to detect shop lifting per-se, but to detect if a cashier is in cahoots with a customer and deliberately failing to ring up some expensive items. Spot checking for this will catch it reasonably quickly. It is the same reason movie theaters have one person sell you the ticket, and another check the ticket.



It is hard to see how any other system could accomplish this.

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



Honestly, this is nothing more than a case of a Police Officer abusing his power. This is every common practice today, but the majority of peple just let it happen because it is easier to bow down than it is to stand up.



I have been arrested because I did not "Abide by the officers commands". This is the same situation.



Sorry, this is nothing but abuse of power and this country wants to be ruled with an iron fist. We are showing it right here.



This is the "slippery slope".





Tom

 

[Rick Kent]

TJR,



I respect your opinion because it is always well thought out and well reasoned.



You have stated there is no reason not to believe Rhigi's blog. I submit there is every reason to question his version of events. On his site he is now soliciting money for his defense. He needs to make his version the most sympathetic that he can.



Additionally I question why a police officer asking for ID is not reasonable espcially when Rhigi is the one who called the police. He is the complaintant but he chose not to cooperate with them. The officer could have been doing other police work rather than attempting to mediate a dispute between a store and Rhigi. Could this be the basis for the obstruction charge?



Again, I am of the firm belief that Rhigi has an agenda and that agenda is leading him to slant his version a certain way. I appreciate all of your views.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Fkent,



I've called the local police several times to report things, and they have on a couple of occassions come to my house to talk to me and take action. Never have they asked for my identification. Now, you might say "Yeah, but you were at your house!", yeah, so? I don't see a big difference there.



Another time I witnessed a car vs pedestrian accident at a local convenience store. The local police took my statement. They asked for name, address, phone number, but NEVER my ID.



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

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

I too am an avid firearm owner. I enjoy ALL of my rights as guarenteed by the B.O.R.



This same topic was posted on one of the firearms forums that I frequent. Needless to say the debate on MyST.co, is TAME in comparison, but the sentiments pretty much run the same lines. "Charge me or get out of my way", "Pick your battles", "he brought it on himself"... it doesn't matter. There is a little stupidity, a little power-mongering, a little harrassment, and more in this story, if true.



Personally, I'm not going to take a side on this fight. It's not a battle that I would have picked, especially with the Police, but I applaud this citizen for standing up.



As for the "Right to Carry" states questions:

(2) States do not require ANY permit to carry a firearm concealed or open - Vermont and Alaska

(35) States have a Shall-Issue - that is must issue the license if all legal requirements are met

(3) States have a Do-Issue law - there is SOME descrepancy in who can cannot get a carry license

(8) States have a Capricious-Issue - The issueing county has descretion and the regulations range from "liberal" to "strickt"

(2) States have a No-Issue law - Illinois and Wisconsin - cannot carry period.



Summation is that in 40 states, there is limited government intervention in the "right to carry". In at least 45 states there is a GUARENTEED RIGHT to carry on your own property. Washington DC doesn't even allow handguns to be assembled withen the city limits (currently being challenged at the SCOTUS).



(2) States allows rural open carry

(10) States openly allow open carry

(13) States allow permeted open carry

(18) States do not make open carry illegal

(6) States do not allow open carry

(1) State is too legalistic to really tell one way or another



(43) States have some sort of legal open carry

(6) Do not allow open carry, but of the 6, (1) is a Capricious-Issue carry permit, while the rest are a shall-issue.



That makes 49 states have some sort of right to carry (with or without permit), the other is ambiguous. Washington DC for the time being is a "yeah right" area. Don't even bother to try.



So yes, more than likely Ironbar is perfectly capable of enjoying his RIGHTS as stated by the various state constiutions....

 

[Gavin Allan]

Again, I am of the firm belief that Rhigi has an agenda

Damn right he has an agenda! He is trying to preserve the rights that some folks want him and others to give up.



Government should serve the citizens, not citizens serving the government.



What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?



ANOTEHR GREAT POST, RICH! I'd vote for you for president over the candidates we have running. Seriously--you know more and have more common sense.

 

[Rick Kent]

TJR,



Semantics. An officer asking who you are is asking you to ID yourself. Why call the police if you have no intention of cooperating? When the officer arrived and talked to the complaintant, Rhigi he probably was not expecting the confrontational attitude, thus the needless escalation.



We are not getting the whole truth, just his spin.



Gavin,



You have no idea what his agenda is. When he started down this path I doubt he was acting as a protector of civil liverties for you and me.



There is no reason to name call when someone disagrees with you. Serenity now....