Man Wins Partial Victory In Circuit City Arrest 788
JeremyDuffy writes "Michael Righi, the man who was arrested at Circuit City for failing to show his reciept/driver's license, has fought a moral battle against the city for almost a month now. The case has already been settled and he emerged victorious... sort of. It turns out that he's already spent almost $7500 and would have kept fighting them too, but because his family would have been dragged into it, he was forced to take a deal. They've expunged his record and dropped all charges, but he had to give up his right to sue the city to do it."
wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
One question... (Score:1, Insightful)
Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.
This guy is an idiot (Score:0, Insightful)
As my old mate said... (Score:5, Insightful)
This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One question... (Score:2, Insightful)
The city already let the first set of criminals go free, all they're doing is asking for equal treatment.
Re:wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizen Review Boards (Score:5, Insightful)
It will solve many problems and make cops stop and think before doing something stupid - especially with all the news lately about abuses of power and authority.
Internal reviews are useless and don't change a thing. If some kind of "policing for police" isn't done soon, it's only going to get much worse.
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
the guy had balls to stand up for WHAT IS RIGHT and you criticize him for doing what is right over a few dollars (that won't matter in a couple of years)?
when we put money and personal comfort up against all other Rights of society, we are phucked, truly.
I'm proud of that guy. I would call him 'friend' if I knew him.
Re:One question... (Score:2, Insightful)
The real lesson here (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it a partial victory? (Score:4, Insightful)
Victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One question... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:hey folks (Score:5, Insightful)
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
Re:One question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking through your other posts, you're obviously no friend of civil liberties. A cursory glance shows you arguing in favor trial-free detention of non-Americans. Why your thinly veiled propaganda gets modded up is a mystery to me.
"I know it's not as "hot" as some of the stuff they've been trying to keep to lately, but c'mon."
What a piss-poor attempt at slander. You try to pass off things like the right to a trial, or the right not to be tortured, as "hot" issues -- as if they're not serious. What else can be said?
Re:Being anal (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that there aren't many people like you who think that random searches by other citizens, and false imprisonment is OK. Standing up for your own rights under the law is far from a waste of time. If you do not protect your own freedom, you will not have any.
Screw you, coward (Score:3, Insightful)
Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
He loses (Score:2, Insightful)
And what did he end up doing? He admitted the officer did nothing wrong (by virtue of signing his agreement, he admits this) and a lawyer made some money off of him. Now he's parading around like he's a champion. He's not. He's a loser.
The cop and all his buddies are probably laughing about this one and they all clearly know his name, car, etc. He will catch no breaks with law enforcement anywhere around that place. The courts know he's a trouble maker and he won't catch any breaks with them. There's quite a few agencies waiting to nail him.
His family was put through all types of stress and duress and were desperate enough to call him late at night and tell him to stop being a jerk. His family is likely embarrassed their son and brother is a borderline lunatic obsessed with unimportant civil law.
I sympathize with the kid who was tazered. The police used unneeded force to punish someone when it isn't the cops jobs to punish people. This guy though got what he deserved: A $7000.00 bill, lots of wasted time, stressed out and humiliated family and a fat target on his ass for cops and courts to nail one day.
I Salute Him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
And reality sets in.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's great to be able to have the ready cash to spend to help defend your rights when they're infringed upon.
Unfortunately, there are other pain-points that can be hit by authorities to make you comply with their wishes.
Lengthy court battles are the root of it. Sure, YOU may not mind taking all that time off work, and spending all that money.
But what about the people you have to drag into it (witnesses, family, etc)?
Moreover, they rely on apathy.
At the time, the anger and outrage are hot enough to barbecue whole cattle.
But, as time goes on, that anger cools. And it becomes harder and harder to keep oneself motivated.
The authorities know this. And time is on their side, ESPECIALLY since they've got the deep pockets to back it up.
Dragging his family along (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Checking the PDF version of the release [michaelrighi.com] that he uploaded, it specifically mentions that incident. It also includes some vague "anything before this" text. Likely to make sure all legal loopholes are closed. (For example, if Righi claimed that the officer had verbally threatened him with arrest the previous day.) It doesn't, however, say anything about subsequent incidents. Even if the same officer were to arrest him outside of the same Circuit City under similar circumstances in the future, this agreement wouldn't prevent him from suing the city.
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
And if he does resist arrest, taser him over and over. Make sure you order him to stand up, at the same time you're leaning on him, especially since the function of tasers is to make your muscles not obey you.
It's not the jackbooted thugs that bother me so much as their cheerleaders.
interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
are you serious? (Score:1, Insightful)
what kind of paranoid hysterical low iq twit mistakes fascism for a rent a cop asking for a receipt?
what the hell is wrong with you?
Re:wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, what an asshole, standing up for his rights against a cop that BROKE THE LAW or a store that does the same.
Re:The real lesson here (Score:2, Insightful)
You should thank him for that too. Believe me, when you end up severely fucked by the government it's always better not to get that lesson first hand. No one is going to stick up for you. No amount of logic will assist you. There is nothing you can do to fight the system because you're fighting the system WITHIN the system itself. It sucks that this is reality, but things could honestly be worse, so I suppose there is that much to be thankful for. If someone could have shown this guy that he would waste $7500 and his time for nothing, then perhaps he would appreciate that too. Not happily of course, but I'd rather be unhappy with an extra $7500.
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
With that said, the racial tensions need to be ignored when looking at the current case. Someone was beaten by 6 others. That was a crime and those 6 others should be charged. Supporting the 6 who did the beating makes no sense to me. Are we saying it's okay to beat down someone? Is vigilante justice the way to go now? Does not liking a certain group of people for whatever reason give them the right to come and beat that person down?
Re:Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice strawman.
Re:Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's my responsibility to know what I can't do.
Therefore it is the police's responsibility to know what they can't fucking arrest me for, and the cop's ass should be on the line if they get it wrong. Mine certainly is if I fail in my duty, since the result is a cop arresting me, probably knocking me around a bit in the process, and backing their authority with deadly force. That's hardly trivial, so misapplication of this kind of force should be severely punished. Fine the fuckers, and fire them then throw their asses in jail if they do it repeatedly.
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post makes the baby 5th amendment cry.
Re:One question... (Score:1, Insightful)
Regardless of whether or not not supporting homosexual marriage is the same as being against homosexuality, his tough-on-crime stance and votes have been major players in what got him into this arrest, as well as against his uphill battle to reverse his guilty plea (the same faced by many, many other people who may be innocent but plea bargained rather than facing a court case with a questionable outcome).
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
A store has a right to protect its property and eject people from its premises. They have no rights concerning someone else's property nor their mobility. They should have written down his license plate number and let the police do the policing.
Re:well why aren't you obligated? (Score:3, Insightful)
They do have a right to stop shoplifting. For your protection, this right does not include detaining anyone they think might be shoplifting. If they observe you shoplifting (which requires observing the person select the item, conceal the item, and leave the store without paying), they can stop you long enough to resolve the situation and summon the police. In some states, this action has limited liability; in others, the detaining person is making a citizen's arrest and has greater liability.
You may not think it bears much relation to fascism, but the generalization is that private entities (businesses) are permitted to detain citizens on suspicion of wrongdoing based on arbitrary criteria.
Two of my least favorite sayings in one quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying: "He must have a lot of time on his hands". Translation: "I don't approve of how you spend your time."
Saying: "You've gotta pick your battles". Translation: "I've gotta pick your battles."
Talk about "snobbish".
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the disparate set of charges that are leveled when a white person commits a crime and when a black person commits a crime.
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) -- see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Incorrect. They do not have the right to search individuals. They do have the right to ask you to leave the premesis. They're quite free to ask you to be searched or leave. They cannot, however, decide to search you after you have entered and done business there and attempt to detain you or take your possessions after you've left the premesis.
They did detain him, and his response was to call the police to be freed from unlawful arrest. (There's substantial documentation on what information is necessary to make lawful arrest for shoplifting.)
Or they can call police, who -- armed with the probable cause presented by the store -- will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops -- "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Aah, but not showing a receipt or refusing a search is not probable cause. Someone leaving the store without submitting to a search is evidence for nothing, and the police are required to treat it as such.
Re:Arrest them all, let the lawyers sort it out (Score:3, Insightful)
I would add that it is his job to know the law and to be able to notify you of laws you have broken before/while detaining you. As such, if he is unable to notify you of the laws you have violated then he is negligent in his duties and has insufficient training to hold such a position of authority.
Something to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
If a person replies as AC, does that mean they have something to hide? Or does it mean that there's an expectation of privacy in going about your business.
Re:so what was the victory? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:so how do you stop a shoplifter? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the guy feels that it's a fight that's worth having, then it is. Sure it would be easier to show his receipt and have no hassle. But sometimes people decide that this time it's worth it to put forth the effort and not do the easiest thing.
Here's an example: There's a guy on Slashdot who thinks that the whole Circuit City thing was excessively escalated by some guy just basically being a jerk. So he takes the time to post that opinion. Others disagree, so he responds, reiterating his opinion, when it would have been just as easy --easier, really -- to leave it at that. But he continues the argument anyway. Why doesn't he just forget about it and let them have the last word? It would be easier, sure, but I think that this is an issue that this Slashdot guy feels strongly enough about that he's willing to put up a fight over it, even knowing that no one will "win" that argument.
Re:wrong? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Receipt? Oh yeah, here you go. Check ya later."
He didn't deserve any of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's o.k. tho... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another moral of the story: insecure people wearing an uniform because it gives them a sense of power will fly off the handle if they feel their authority is in any way challenged. It isn't the question of being suspicious, it's the question of threatening the policeman's delusions of grandeur.
Q: Why not cooperate? A: Because I am free. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it sad that we have become so timid, in this country, that we are willing to tolerate this type of activity by the police. While the officer in question might have thought himself justified in making such a demand, and then enforced his wrongheaded belief with the authority we have granted him , he was wrong and should be called to account for it. We have given the police special powers, because it is necessary for them to do their job. I realize it is a very hard and thankless job; it does not pay well, and is often looked upon with scorn. But, that is something which must be accepted when a person chooses to become a police officer. Along with that, there must come an added level of responsibility to use the powers granted by the people, in an appropriate fashion. Any abuse of those powers, no matter how slight, must be punished. This is were we, as a society, are failing to uphold our rights, and will lose them eventually; we not only allow abuses such as these to go unpunished, we have people who encourage it. The AC who posted the idiocy of, "Why not cooperate?" is complicit is the destruction of our rights. He would give over his personal sovereignty to the police because it is easier. Freedom and Liberty are not easy, they are hard, but they are worth the constant struggle. He may think that having the police rule his life will make him safer, but time and again history has shown us that this is not the case. Governments given absolute sovereignty over their citizens do not long remain benign, and usually lead to tyranny and abuses far greater than the constant annoyance of crime.
Liberty requires that each of us take responsibility for ourselves. This includes accepting a certain level of risk from criminals who may abuse their freedom. This means that you will be responsible for protecting and caring for yourself. In then end, you must ask yourself whether it is better to die on your feet or live on your knees.
Patrick Henry said it best:
I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death.
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply because of that I don't approve of him being released. He's clearly a violent person and the fact that he's a violent person living in a town with racists shouldn't affect his sentence in any way.
Re:Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:4, Insightful)
A 'poor kid' would have never had the time/resources to fight this, he would have forked over his ID, and took it because he had to. It takes someone who has the resources to take one for the little guy so that future people won't get the same treatment. The poor kid has to worry about paying for his food/rent and can't afford to spend time defending his rights. Sadly, that's just the way it is.
Also note that this 'rich kid' had to cut it short because he wasn't rich enough to let it all play out. That should be telling.
Re:Q: Why not cooperate? A: Because I am free. (Score:2, Insightful)
All we need to know... (Score:2, Insightful)
If Righi really wants to have more Howard Roarks in the world he should have dragged this whole thing out to the bitter end, family be damned. After all, what's more Romantic and Randian than being martyred for what you believe? Even if what you believe is only that you shouldn't take two seconds to show your receipt at Circuit City after buying a Wii game. Actually, I hear that was originally what Rand was going to write about in The Fountainhead, but her publisher suggested she make it about architects instead...
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Any abuse of police powers should be fought, period.
Complacency is the first step to losing the rights that our ancestors fought, bled and died for. Do you want to be the one to tell good old uncle GW (George Washington, not the other asshats) that you pissed away everything that all those men and women died for?
Re:I Salute Him (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One question... (Score:4, Insightful)
So really, we have three incidents:
Racist(s) put nooses on tree.
Idiot Racist points gun at people.
Six thugs beat up one guy, and at least one has a history.
Then they try and justify their beating of someone UNINVOLVED in the previous two (by all evidence) because of the previous two.
If six white kids beat up a black kid, people would call it a hate crime -- ESPECIALLY if there was some anti-white "prank" at school three months before. It would be presented as "White kids, angered by anti-white display, beat unrelated black kid."
Instead, it's "Their poor feelings were hurt, so these six black kids ganged up on some random white kid, and that's okay, because there was some racism three months before!"
Re:Citizen Review Boards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well they did silence you... (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't about some obscure legal code, it's about when he can and cannot ask for ID. Since that pertains to his job just a little bit, he deserves no slack whatsoever.
Re:Q: Why not cooperate? A: Because I am free. (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't show someone a receipt or open his bag? Now that is fucked up.
Are you kidding me? You actually don't get it? How thick can you be? Simply amazing.
Re:wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
But when they put them in a hard to access location on a freeway support, they went way over the line. The only way to handle that is to shutdown traffic on the affected segment (which requires closing off lanes quite far away and routing traffic through already crowded surface streets for just ONE device) and treat it with caution until it is determined to be harmless.
They had the option, at any time before there was a panic, to inform town officials or emergency responders of the nature of the devices. The best time would've been before placing them. The next best time would be right as soon as they started a commotion. The worst time was what they chose: wait until the city was in full panic mode and there was no way to deny their involvement.
No, their choice of placement, and their actions leading up to and following the event are strong evidence of their intent to cause national headline inducing panic in at least one city. Boston took the bait. Not a proud moment for Boston, but by no means a responsibility absolving level of overreaction.
Re:Ethical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He loses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is to prove that employees are honest. Employees can't just walk out of the front door of a store with goods, and, trust me, the back is usually tightly locked up, someone goes out back there and they set off alarms.
Employee theft mainly happens by employees not ringing things up. You show up at the register with a PS3 and three games, and your drinking buddy, who runs the register, doesn't scan the PS3.
I'm not saying anything about the legality of them checking the register, but it's not to stop the absurd idea of you trying to shoplift somehow via the shopping bag. It's to make sure that if you have eight items in your bag, you have eight items on your receipt, and the cashier didn't 'forget' to scan one of them.
However, there are plenty of non-invasive ways to do the same check. They almost always have cameras pointed at the register. If they're missing some PS3s, they just need to pull up the camera on the PS3s, wait until one of them disappears, and then see when it shows up at the register. And then pull up that transaction and see if there's a PS3 on it.
See, the joke is they don't need to catch the people in real time. It's their employees who are doing the stealing, and they can have the police there ready to arrest them when they show up for work.
The guy who walked out with the thing is completely unimportant. Give the video to the police when you turn the employee in, they'll quickly locate the co-conspirator and charge him.
But the problem is that my method would actually take some modest skill, whereas someone standing at the door takes no skill at all. They don't even have to check the receipt actually, they just have to pretend to do so and the plan will be foiled when first conceived.
Re:Q: Why not cooperate? A: Because I am free. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I believe that I am responsible for protecting myself and my family, it is quite possible that I will fail. Moreover, if I shoot someone and claim self-defense, who is to say that I am not lying? The crime (presumably either an assault on me, or a murder and lie on my part) needs to be investigated. If I am lying, I need to be arrested and held to account for the murder. This is where the police come in. They are there to pick up the pieces afterward and determine whether or not they fit together. This is the reason we give them the power to question people, to arrest suspects and to search private property under the oversight of the courts, it would be impossible to investigate crimes otherwise.
A large part of the problem is that we, as a society, are starting to expect the police to prevent crime. They cannot reasonably do this, but they try. The problem is that, in order to do so, they are engaging in behaviors which run counter to a free society. The current case being just one example. This is why it is important for us free citizens to accept the responsibility of living in a free society, and the dangers which come with it. We need to let the police do their real job, investigating crimes, and quit trying to get them to be our personal bodyguards.
The goal is not anarchy, it is a society and government which respects the liberty of each individual. And there is a place for the police, it is just not as protectors, but investigators.
When do we stop? Anarchy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, with anarchy, ie without a ruler or rulers. Instead each person is sovereign.
FalconThis is the justice system in America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Combine this with absolutely zero options or oversight from the citizenry and you already have a recipe for disaster.
A cop will therefore hassle a citizen based on a combination of hazy understanding of the law, bad mood, and whether or not he approves of the citizen's attitude. The charge is usually, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but enough to cause a serious headache for the victim. For many things, an arrest will be involved, along with jailtime, bond money, and the embarassment of having to call friends and family to get you out, not to mention the retrieval of whatever confiscated or impounded property -- and the money involved in getting that back.
This is justice in America.
Your court date will roll around and you'll plead not guilty. A trial date will be set, meaning you'll have to schedule your life around that, and try to get a lawyer to help. The average person isn't expected to fully understand the law, because it's so nuanced and convoluted, which is why defense attorneys with years of specialized training exist. The average person is expected to fully abide by the law he doesn't understand, though, which may suggest a problem with the system, but nobody will question it during this process.
On your trial date you'll speak to some self-important prosecutor or solicitor who acts on behalf of the government. He'll treat your minor case like it's the crime of the century. Depending on your demeanor he may offer a deal of some sort, which usually entails you pleading guilty to a somewhat lessor offense. What he probably won't tell you is that if you reject this offer, and make him go through the hassle of an actual trial, he'll push for the maximum possible punishment the law allows, regardless of any circumstances up to that point.
This is justice in America.
If you take his deal, you've just pleaded guilty to an offense you may not have even committed, and is probably something so stupid no one should care even if you did do it, but you're intimidated into the plea by his legal jargon and the fact that, as an average Joe, you don't have the time, money, or resources devoted to fighting it. You'll pay a few hundred dollars in fines and be on your way, with an arrest record, a criminal history, and completely out the hundreds you spent for the bond, the fine, the impound, the attorney, and anything else. The state will pat itself on the back for a job well done for cleaning up the mean streets of dangerous scum like you.
If you don't take his deal you'll be put on trial. For minor offenses you may not even get a jury of twelve average Joes who will sympathize with you; the state has found a loophole and called this an "administrative matter", meaning you'll get tried by a judge, who will claim to be impartial but is on the state's payroll and has a vested interest in making sure things turn out in the state's favor, not to mention his clouded view of every person who appears before him as a criminal.
The judge will ignore everything you say, and your attorney will be mostly powerless since the time for deal-making is over and all he can do is try to object to the prosection's evidence. There will be little evidence to which he can object, though, since for most minor offenses there aren't any significant witnesses or material bits of evidence. Nothing but the policeman's word and charge on the books, often, and this will be taken as wholly sufficient to pronounce you guilty, whereupon you'll pay a huge fine, face possible jail time, and be in worse shape than you had you just meekly submitted instead of trying to assert your rig
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know you fancy yourself as smarter than the judiciary and the fact that the Constitution article III section 2 gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction for all cases tried is insignificant next to your formidable intelligence in all constitutional matters. But still, the Supreme Court interprets the fifth in such a way that lack of testimony may not be used as evidence and the Constitution we live by says their opinion counts, yours not so much.
Kudos to the Judge, who was clearly better versed in the law than you.