Probably, because by refusing a simple check you'd likely then give them reasonable grounds to suspect you were attempting a theft and they could thus detain you because of it i'd have thought.
Costco receipt checking
- Thread starter gambitt
- Start date
Probably, because by refusing a simple check you'd likely then give them reasonable grounds to suspect you were attempting a theft and they could thus detain you because of it i'd have thought.
"Pretty much" because a few people say so?
I'm not wrong.
Lucky you.If you are interested, I made a thread about it back in April
I think it's fine, you don't have to read it. Others are still happily posting and no rules are being broken
. I think it makes a nice change to "spec me a toaster" threads.Wrong. Like I said above, the police do not want to be bothered with trivial matters. My car window got smashed last year, they said they don't turn up for that kind of thing anymore and gave me a crime number. I'm repeating myself but as you obviously missed it the first time (even though you quoted it) I wouldn't call the police for the crime of littering in the street as it's simply not worth it. I may create a thread about littering though if I felt I wanted to dicsuss it on a discussion forum
Wrong again. I'm not complaining. If I wanted to complain I'd write to Costco. I simply presented the facts and proceeded to discuss the legalities of the situation. What you perceive as "whining/moaning/complaining" is actually me just replying to posts by other members. I don't want to leave anyone out!
They might have if I refused.
I'm not wrong.
Why do I have to be aligned with your way of thinking? Am I not allowed to hold my own opinion?
If they prevented me from leaving without reasonable suspicion then that would be detaining, wouldn't it?
Soldato
They could not detain him. As above, carrying out a citizens arrest is risky unless you know the conditions required to make one. If he turned out innocent, or excess force was used (these are just examples) then the arresting citizen could find themselves in hot water.
Caporegime
You don't have to agree to my way of thinking, but even after a hundred + posts from others you opinion doesn't seem to even sway a little bit. Rather seeking for a reason, which we have given, you simply continue to whine (yes i said it), complain, moan, bitching about how you have been done wrong.
Opinions are like holes, we all have them. They all stink.
Caporegime
You are.
Soldato
Asking to check your trolley is not a detention. Preventing you from leaving by closing doors, restraining you etc is. If they did the latter, then they would be breaking the law.
Asking you to remain until a police officer arrives would be acceptable.
I'm not seeking a reason. I know why they search people I'm interested in discussing the inner workings of the law to find out if what they are doing is actually legal. Why, you ask? Because I'm interested in it.
Here we go again with the whining. Perhaps it's just the tone in which internet posts are read, but I assure you I have a smile on my face when reading this thread.
People whine in GD all the time, I think it's being given too much attention in this thread to detract from the fact that we haven't really got into discussing the actual law (no more T&C quotes please!)
Caporegime
Life is too short for this crap.
Commissario
So what happens if he doesn't?
I find it hard to believe a shop has absolutely no rights to restrain anybody that they reasonably suspect of shoplifting, otherwise it would surely be rampant as you could just walk out of any shop you pleased and all they could risk doing (unless they were absolutely 100% sure) is saying 'Please you would you mind waiting sir?', to which you reply 'No' and walk off with all your stolen goods
Tell me about it! I'm tired now. I didn't expect such a huge response but I don't like to "post and run" so I try to reply to everyone who aims a question at me. I'm off to have a beer! I look forward to reading the next barrage of crap that heads my way
I was only replying to the many times that you kept telling me I was wrong.
Once would've done but when you have a weak argument you have to rely on repeating yourself for emphasis.
Soldato
So what happens if he doesn't?
I find it hard to believe a shop has absolutely no rights to restrain anybody that they reasonably suspect of shoplifting, otherwise it would surely be rampant as you could just walk out of any shop you pleased and all they could risk doing (unless they were absolutely 100% sure) is saying 'Please you would you mind waiting sir?', to which you reply 'No' and walk off with all your stolen goods
Most stores do not encourge physical restraint in a theft situation as a citizens arrest cannot be made - I'm referring to petty theft, not nicking the till.
However, the police will rarely take action against a quick thinking employee that legs up and sits on a thief making off with a telly under his arm.
We've noticed.
In which single post have I repeated myself please? Or are you just taking an out of context quote and trying (and failing) to be clever?
Caporegime
Okay, I'll answer the question of
How about the store revoke the membership of the member because he brought in a guest who refuse to comply with the rules?
I think that is PERFECTLY fair and legitimate and fully within their rights.
The member would just tell the friend to let them check your bags. If the OP doesn't then, i dunno, argument ensures in the store between the member and the OP.
How about the store revoke the membership of the member because he brought in a guest who refuse to comply with the rules?
I think that is PERFECTLY fair and legitimate and fully within their rights.
The member would just tell the friend to let them check your bags. If the OP doesn't then, i dunno, argument ensures in the store between the member and the OP.
