Whineyass Customer Detained at Home Depot

[yizuman]

http://consumerist.com/361515/unlawf...howing-receipt

Someone call the WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!

[PaRaGaS]

I have never experienced the practice of receipt checking at store exit, and IMO this man is perfectly within his rights to protest any activities violating his person.

[ArcticChicken]

OK, if you've consistently received poor enough service that you have, on several occasions, left the store to drive out of town, why do you keep going back? If the service was as poor as that man described, I would not have gone there enough to spend $10,000. I don't know anything about the legal aspects of this, but IMHO that guy is an ass.

[Listerfiend]

Ugh... that guy is a dick. Obviously he had something to hide, otherwise he would've complied (unless he really is that paranoid...).

[myswtghst]

Wow. I actually sat and read his whole e-mail, and became more annoyed with the whiner.

-Trouble receiving replacement parts missing from a ceiling fan kit; the local Home Depot associate actually opened up a new box for a different fan, gave me parts he assured would work, and sent me on my way. The parts didn't fit my fan at all, and now the local Home Depot has yet another opened and incomplete item; the Chinese manufacturer was more efficient and shipped the parts to me as a courtesy.

The above passage annoyed me the most, because, as we've often noted, going to the vendor when parts are missing or a unit is defective is often the best course of action. They make the darn things, chances are, they'll have the replacement parts and honor the warranty!

Paragas - In some areas, and especially in stores like Sam's Club and Costco, receipt checking is common practice, designed to prevent theft. It takes a few seconds of my time, and I generally don't mind at all, if it makes them happy. Granted, I've never heard of the police actually enforcing it.

And by the by, I'm guessing this should be in Check It Out! given the linkage.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

Long story short, I refused to show my receipt to exit the store, and was detained illegally (albeit briefly) by a uniformed Washington, DC Metropolitan Police officer in the 5th District on February 21, 2008

Gee, I wonder why. A few details being left out that paint the OP in a not-so-favorable light, perhaps? Such as he aroused the suspicions of LP?

-A store security guard grabbing my person and my purchased items and not allowing me to leave the store; my father had the receipt and already left the immediate area (Again, this type of action is unlawful; store employees or contractors have no legal right to touch/assault customers or prevent them from leaving, even if no receipt is shown. After purchasing the items, a customer's obligation to the store ends.)

Another "flawyer" heard from. Using his logic it's illegal to detain a shoplifter.

And of course the entitlement whores commenters side with him and drive off anybody who dares to voice a dissenting opinion by calling them a "sheep" who "takes it in the ass."

Frankly, it's no big deal to me to show my receipt at the door. It takes only a few seconds and I have nothing to hide anyway. And I would immediately be suspicious of anybody who refused to show to receipt and argued about it, but I wouldn't have enough to chase somebody who just walked out the door without showing the receipt. Not that I'd want to anyway.

[DGoddessChardonnay]

Moved the thread over to Check It Out . . . more apropo.

[Nakajo]

The reason Costco and Sam's Club ask to check receipts is for several reasons, but it is actually part of your membership agreement when you sign up.

I've had people whine and complain and pout and yell about how it's "against the law" and "invasion of privacy". Then I whip out the Member Services booklet that everyone gets when they sign their membership form and point to the part that requires members to show their receipts when leaving, and the part where we reserve the right to refund your membership fee then cancel your membership for any reason.

I also love how he says it's illegal detainment, and without reasonable suspicion that he was stopped. He was asked to show his receipt, he probably threw a huge fit and refused... a cop sees this, thinks "Hey, that's pretty suspicious! Why is he refusing to do something so simple? Is he trying to steal?" and detains him. Home Depot didn't detain him, the cop did because he was acting suspiciously! a-DUH. You can get pulled over in your car for acting suspiciously under reasonable grounds, and it's legal. How can this be much different?

[texasbelle5]

It's just not a hill to die on as far as I am concerned. They want to see my reciept? Fine. I have nothing to hide. I didn't shoplift. It's all paid for. It takes 1-2 minutes to check everything and I am on my way.

Way easier than making an ass of myself and being detained and questioned by the Police.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I have never experienced the practice of receipt checking at store exit, and IMO this man is perfectly within his rights to protest any activities violating his person.

I totally agree. Unless they disclosed that this was store policy upfront, and thus giving him an opportunity to opt out from the get-go, they were way out of line detaining him.

And cops? Home Depot's store policies are not laws. Is there no, you know, actual crime in that town?"

Yes, it's a little thing to show a receipt. And it's in tiny, bare-noticable increments that our privacy and rights are chipped away.

[Pedersen]

I'm going to keep this brief, as this is a sore point for me. I'm also going to do my best to avoid going into fratching territory, and hope I succeed.

Membership clubs (like Sam's and Costco) are perfectly within their rights to do this. You sign an agreement when you join up, that agreement says you will show receipt. End of story there.

Stores which are open to the general public are not within their rights to do this. Whether or not they are trying to deter theft is, quite frankly, not the problem of the customers. That problem is the store's problem, not the customer's.

Here's where the hot button issue comes in: In order for the store to justify doing this to all customers, they have to believe that every customer is a thief just waiting for the right moment. That's right, every time they check your receipt, they are calling you a thief.

As for myself, I really don't like being called a thief, since I'm not one. As such, I choose not to shop at stores which do so.

Back on track, though: I do see the receipt checking as the beginning of a slippery slope. Today, the stores are asking to check your receipts. Tomorrow, they'll be asking to empty out any/all bags before you leave the store. After that, they'll need to frisk you before you leave. After that comes the body cavity search.

At what point does it go too far? Why do we have to let things reach that point to start? Why should we, the customer, have to put up with this?

So it only takes a few seconds to show the receipt. It will only take a few minutes in future, when you have to have your bags searched. And a few more minutes after that...

As to the other comment: If you have nothing to hide, why not show it? This one drives me nuts more than any other. Why do I have to have something to hide? Why can't I just want to be left alone? Even the courts have acknowledged this sort of thing.

Veering slightly off track, yes, you can be pulled over for driving in a suspicious manner. And if the cop asks to search your car, your right to say no (at least here in the USA) is enshrined in the constitution. You do not have to let him do anything. He has to have a valid reason to suspect that something will be found, and you just driving suspiciously doesn't cut it.

Same thing for walking around. He doesn't get to search you without a warrant or probable cause. And the courts have long held that the fact that you don't want to be searched is not probable cause.

I've started to ramble a bit, but the issue here is a very important one to me: I want to be left alone. I don't want to be harassed. But to do that, I have to have the rest of the country say the same thing. And all too often, the overall attitude is "It's just a few seconds, and I have nothing to hide, so why not?" And that attitude will, sooner or later, screw us all over.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I'm right there with with you, Pedersen. You don't have to prove your innocence, at least in this country. It's up to them to prove your guilt. And until they do that, they have no right to search you. Hassling you for a receipt constitutes a search.

The guy was not making a big deal out of a little thing for no good reason. He was illustrating a point. He was hoping we would all see what happened when he refused to allow his rights to be compromised and be just as outraged as he is.

I am.

I do respect the policies of stores like Sam's Club, where the search is written into your terms of service. They disclosed their policy, I agreed to it when I signed up for membership. Fair enough. But the day I try to buy a pack of light bulbs, pay for them , then be unable to leave a store that has no such disclosure without being shaken down by paranoid assholes and corrupt cops, ya'll will be reading about me on the news, too.

[myswtghst]

I have to add, here, that I think the main reason I have no sympathy for his "main" complaint, is because all the little side things he threw in there just to bolster his point. It annoys me to no end when people pull this on PFB, because it starts to seem like you're just throwing in every little slight you can think of, most of which are silly/unimportant, to make your complaint more severe. When, in reality, it makes me think that you're whiny, and silly, for not just going somewhere else.

I never understand that mentality - in this case, if he had such astronomically better luck going to another store, even if it was FAR away, he could have planned better and made a weekly trip (or what-have-you) to the FAR away store to buy everything he needed, in a place with an apparently perfect staff and unlimited supply of materials. Why torment yourself just because it's close, unless you needed something super-quick for a fix.

I'm not going to touch the reciept-checking debate again, as I will go into Fratching territory, and I just don't feel like arguing.

[Tuxian]

My thoughts on this matter are as follows, and are very short, so please listen carefully.

We don't have enough information about why the cop detained him.

For all we know, the store knew this man to be a troublemaker, and the cop was doing his job. We just don't know enough about what really happened to judge one way or another.

Should we have to show reciepts at the door when we go shopping? I personally see no problem with it. Why? Because the store is protecting itself from theives, and protecting us, the consumers, from the rising prices that increased theft causes. And as has been said: The store policy should, if it includes reciept checks, be spelled out in plain language, either on the reciept itself, or on a sign somewhere that cannot be missed as you enter the store. Then, people are informed and have the option to choose.

I think that the letter this person wrote omits too much information to be truly useful in guaging the truth of the matter, and I'll just leave it at that.

[powerboy]

Should we have to show reciepts at the door when we go shopping? I personally see no problem with it. Why? Because the store is protecting itself from theives, and protecting us, the consumers, from the rising prices that increased theft causes. And as has been said: The store policy should, if it includes reciept checks, be spelled out in plain language, either on the reciept itself, or on a sign somewhere that cannot be missed as you enter the store. Then, people are informed and have the option to choose.

I am with you on that. I do not see why people get so mad about it. It only takes a few seconds to show it.