Violation of Civil Rights: Calling Someone Never Formally Charged A Thief

[Procrustes Stretched]

Violation of Civil Rights: Calling Someone Never Formally Charged A Thief

Is "putting up pictures in public, calling someone a thief who has never even been formally charged" a violation of their civil rights?

“If a store owner says he’ll call the police unless you pay up, that’s extortion, that’s illegal,” said Steven Wong, a community advocate in Chinatown, sitting in his office above a restaurant on Chatham Square. “And putting up pictures in public, calling someone a thief who has never even been formally charged, that’s a violation of their civil rights.”

Stores? Treatment of Shoplifters Tests Civil and Legal Rights - NYTimes.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It might be cause for slander, but I don't see it as a civil rights violation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It might be cause for slander, but I don't see it as a civil rights violation.

Cause for slander - has to be proven, eh?

 

[chanel]

A lot of stores don't prosecute if they get their shit back. Our local liquor store posts the pics of people they catch. I think its a great idea. Public shame is a better deterrent than a slap on the wrist by the courts.

Bad decision in my opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A lot of stores don't prosecute if they get their shit back. Our local liquor store posts the pics of people they catch. I think its a great idea. Public shame is a better deterrent than a slap on the wrist by the courts.

Bad decision in my opinion.

Slap on the wrist by the courts? Stop sounding like a nut. What would you ahve the courts do to a petty thief? Cut off their hand?

I knew lots of dept stores had the photos in the back room. I believe in shaming as a way of punishment, if the aim is to reform. Otherwise, it is -- gulp -- no better than a slap on the wrist -- in public. I believe demanding ID and snatching it is far beyond the powers of store employees. Call the police. Then settle out of court.

 

[chanel]

And ask the thief to patiently wait until the police arrive? Yeah right.

Most say "hand it over and get the fuck out of here" Very effective.

The courts cannot handle every petty theft. And they shouldn't have to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It might be cause for slander, but I don't see it as a civil rights violation.

Cause for slander - has to be proven, eh?

Exactly. And truth is a defense against slander. That means the store doesn't have to prove you have been found guilty of theft, they just have to prove you are a thief.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not at all. If you accept that we have self-ownership, then what we think would have to be an extension of that, and what we think of others would be an extension of that. You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

 

[George Costanza]

You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

I don't know where you came up with the tortured logic through which you arrive at your point here, but you could not be more wrong.

Let' s use an example. You don't like either of your neighbors, Bill and Marge Gunderson (fictitious names). So you put a big sign up in your front yard that says: "Bill Gunderson is a child molestor and Marge Gunderson is a whore." None of this is true.

If you think Bill and Marge don't have any right to their reputation, just sit back and see what happens next.

Hint: It will involve lots of lawyers, lots of litigation and LOTS of money, all of it yours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

I don't know where you came up with the tortured logic through which you arrive at your point here, but you could not be more wrong. Let' s use an example. You don't like either of your neighbors, Bill and Marge Gunderson (fictitious names). So you put a big sign up in your front yard that says: "Bill Gunderson is a child molestor and Marge Gunderson is a whore." None of this is true.

If you think Bill and Marge don't have any right to their reputation, just sit back and see what happens next.

Hint: It will involve lots of lawyers, lots of litigation and LOTS of money, almost all of it yours.

I'm aware of what the law is, but it is my opinion that the law is wrong. And my above post explains why.

 

[ConHog]

People who attempt to redefine what are civil rights crack me up. Like fags. HAHAHAH no one has a RIGHT to be gay.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

People who attempt to redefine what are civil rights crack me up. Like fags. HAHAHAH no one has a RIGHT to be gay.

Yes, there is as much a right to be homosexual as there is to be heterosexual.

 

[ConHog]

People who attempt to redefine what are civil rights crack me up. Like fags. HAHAHAH no one has a RIGHT to be gay.

Yes, there is as much a right to be homosexual as there is to be heterosexual.

You do not have the RIGHT to be heterosexual either. Therefor there is no CIVIL right.

You have the right to have all the sex you want, with consenting adults. As far as I know, no one has attempted to prevent that Marriage is a privilege, so far reserved for one man and one woman. we'll see if it lasts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

People who attempt to redefine what are civil rights crack me up. Like fags. HAHAHAH no one has a RIGHT to be gay.

Yes, there is as much a right to be homosexual as there is to be heterosexual.

You do not have the RIGHT to be heterosexual either. Therefor there is no CIVIL right.

You have the right to have all the sex you want, with consenting adults. As far as I know, no one has attempted to prevent that Marriage is a privilege, so far reserved for one man and one woman. we'll see if it lasts.

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, there is as much a right to be homosexual as there is to be heterosexual.

You do not have the RIGHT to be heterosexual either. Therefor there is no CIVIL right.

You have the right to have all the sex you want, with consenting adults. As far as I know, no one has attempted to prevent that Marriage is a privilege, so far reserved for one man and one woman. we'll see if it lasts.

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

Absolutely agree, and I don't ever want the government trying to tell one adult they can't have sex with another. Marriage is different issues IMO. Not being able to marry is not liable to interfere with your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Certainly not getting some could...........

That's just MY understanding of the CON, of course I'm no lawyer, just a historian, well amateur historian, but one with a Masters Degree in the subject.


Getting the state out of marriage is fine, but then of course you have sticky issues of certain benefits that are available to married couples. I don't believe you should just let religion define who gets to get married and have those benefits. You KNOW some jackasses would be marrying their cars and shit.

MY personal feeling is let state's decide, if your state wants to allow gay marriages , go for it, and personally I say let em marry. Who cares?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You do not have the RIGHT to be heterosexual either. Therefor there is no CIVIL right.

You have the right to have all the sex you want, with consenting adults. As far as I know, no one has attempted to prevent that Marriage is a privilege, so far reserved for one man and one woman. we'll see if it lasts.

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

Absolutely agree, and I don't ever want the government trying to tell one adult they can't have sex with another. Marriage is different issues IMO. Not being able to marry is not liable to interfere with your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Certainly not getting some could...........

That's just MY understanding of the CON, of course I'm no lawyer, just a historian, well amateur historian, but one with a Masters Degree in the subject.

Well I am neither a lawyer nor a historian but my understanding of the Constitution says that anything not granted to the federal government in the Constitution the federal government has no authority to get involved in. Marriage is not mentioned in the document, therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You do not have the RIGHT to be heterosexual either. Therefor there is no CIVIL right.

You have the right to have all the sex you want, with consenting adults. As far as I know, no one has attempted to prevent that Marriage is a privilege, so far reserved for one man and one woman. we'll see if it lasts.

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

Getting the state out of marriage is fine, but then of course you have sticky issues of certain benefits that are available to married couples. I don't believe you should just let religion define who gets to get married and have those benefits. You KNOW some jackasses would be marrying their cars and shit.

MY personal feeling is let state's decide, if your state wants to allow gay marriages , go for it, and personally I say let em marry. Who cares?

Marriage is a religious institution, there's no reason to have government involvement at any level. How many religions would acknowledge a marriage between a person and a car? And even if someone tried marriage implies a contract, and you can't have a contract between a person and an inanimate object. But if somebody wants to be married to their car, it does no harm to me or you so why should we care? It won't affect your personal idea of what marriage constitutes so it's irrelevant.

I assumed you were against gay marriage, but I guess not.

 

[ConHog]

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

Absolutely agree, and I don't ever want the government trying to tell one adult they can't have sex with another. Marriage is different issues IMO. Not being able to marry is not liable to interfere with your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Certainly not getting some could...........

That's just MY understanding of the CON, of course I'm no lawyer, just a historian, well amateur historian, but one with a Masters Degree in the subject.

Well I am neither a lawyer nor a historian but my understanding of the Constitution says that anything not granted to the federal government in the Constitution the federal government has no authority to get involved in. Marriage is not mentioned in the document, therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

Actually, the federal government does have implied powers that are not specifically mentioned in the CON, I don't personally believe this is one of them.


BUT the CON reads that any power not given to the feds in the CON is reserved for the states or the people. Which would make this a state's rights issue that every state should have the right to decide for themselves since obviously we can't have 350M people running around making their own definition of marriage.

 

[ConHog]

Well at least your consistent. Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Now we weren't discussing marriage, but sexuality. As far as marriage goes, I say get the state out of the marriage business all together and allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves. When the aggression of the state is removed and the voluntary association of religion is at the forefront then marriage is no longer an issue.

Getting the state out of marriage is fine, but then of course you have sticky issues of certain benefits that are available to married couples. I don't believe you should just let religion define who gets to get married and have those benefits. You KNOW some jackasses would be marrying their cars and shit.

MY personal feeling is let state's decide, if your state wants to allow gay marriages , go for it, and personally I say let em marry. Who cares?

Marriage is a religious institution, there's no reason to have government involvement at any level. How many religions would acknowledge a marriage between a person and a car? And even if someone tried marriage implies a contract, and you can't have a contract between a person and an inanimate object. But if somebody wants to be married to their car, it does no harm to me or you so why should we care? It won't affect your personal idea of what marriage constitutes so it's irrelevant.

I assumed you were against gay marriage, but I guess not.

No, I'm not against it. Hell if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them.

The problem with just allowing anyone to marry whatever they want comes when situations arise where the government does have to be involved.

For instance, some jackass finds a loopy church that lets him marry his car, he dies and there's a will leaving all his money to his wife err car, the kids get pissed and sue. Now what? Just as an example.

There has to be SOME standard from the government's point of view, just for logistical reasons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely agree, and I don't ever want the government trying to tell one adult they can't have sex with another. Marriage is different issues IMO. Not being able to marry is not liable to interfere with your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Certainly not getting some could...........

That's just MY understanding of the CON, of course I'm no lawyer, just a historian, well amateur historian, but one with a Masters Degree in the subject.

Well I am neither a lawyer nor a historian but my understanding of the Constitution says that anything not granted to the federal government in the Constitution the federal government has no authority to get involved in. Marriage is not mentioned in the document, therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

Actually, the federal government does have implied powers that are not specifically mentioned in the CON, I don't personally believe this is one of them.


BUT the CON reads that any power not given to the feds in the CON is reserved for the states or the people. Which would make this a state's rights issue that every state should have the right to decide for themselves since obviously we can't have 350M people running around making their own definition of marriage.

How can a document that states any power not given to the federal government in that document, give powers to the federal government which are not in that document? That ideology is what allows for the growth of government, and the plain language of the Constitution disproves it completely.

Why can't anyone who wants to have their own definition of marriage? Anyone can enter into a contract, which is all that marriage really is if you remove the spirituality from it, so what's the difference?