Epic Mickey 2 for Vita coming June 18
Epic Mickey 2 is coming to Vita on June 18, with a few new touch features.
2
Poker Night 2 antes up on iOS
Telltale brings Poker Night 2 to iOS, taking the series' irreverent take on Texas...
1
Warhammer Quest hitting iOS May 30
Warhammer Quest, an iOS game based on the 1995 tabletop game, is set to hit the...
7
Super Stardust dev making 'spiritual successor' for PS4
Super Stardust HD dev Housemarque has released games in the arcade rock-blaster...
1
Dungeons & Dragons: Chronicles of Mystara preview: classic arcade revival
Two decades after Tower of Doom stormed arcades, Capcom is reviving their...
3Yes yes.. I've missed you guys too. I'm looking forward to giving Quake Wars another shot when I get back home in a few days. Of course I've still got to play through BioShock and finish Prime 3... hmmm. Things could be worse!
Well, he's now updated with the recent goings-on: http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/05/papers-please-arrested-at-circuit-city-followup-1/
Not too much yet, as the legal process takes a while, but homeboy is serious about this, taking out a loan against his house and everything.
The part that got me was at the bottom, though:
If anybody is still confused about why I choose to live my life based on principles, I recommend that you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. If only this world had more Howard Roarks…
I will refrain from commenting on that further, save for that I found that particular tidbit... interesting.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 123 replies.
If you're going to compare him to Rosa Parks, you have to compare the underlying right/freedom/whatever that is allegedly being violated.
Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat. The reason that she was supposed to give up her seat was because she was black and a white person wanted the seat, and while she might have just been tired and in no mood to stand up to racism, we're talking about her freedom being taken away because of racial discrimination.
This guy didn't show his receipt. The reason he was supposed to show his receipt was because a company wants to try and reduce shoplifting. And how about the fact we're talking about a private corporation here (one that can institute whatever policies it wishes so long as they do not violate the law - and I can say pretty definitively that a policy requiring the showing of a receipt does not violate any law I'm familiar with)? What is the right he is claiming is violated? He's not being discriminated against based on race, gender, etc... so near as I can tell he's claiming a violation of his right to privacy by compelling a showing of the receipt - a right he isn't even entitled to on private property within the bounds of the law (bounds which would allow the showing of a receipt, for example). I actually feel that this guy is patently wrong about that issue, but as soon as he is pursued and detained in the parking lot, then his civil rights are being violated. The problem is that would have never happened had he not made an incorrect stand for his rights in the first place. He might be arguing that the law should extend to protect not having to show your receipt, in which case I think the guy's a fucking moron. I find that whole act to be an inconvenience, and I even blow the door checkers off from time-to-time, but I am still for a corporation taking reasonable measures to protect its business interests, and I think a quick door check is reasonable even if it is a little bit annoying. If his argument is that the store's check violates his rights, he is wrong. If his argument is that the store's check should be a violation of his rights, well, then I guess he's making a stand on that.
I've said before that I think everybody involved in this whole thing is a jackass (the guy, the store clerk and manager, the cop), and they all made some rather stupid mistakes. *None]* of them have clean hands, so let me break it down:
1. The guy is wrong because he did not show his receipt. This is not a right he is entitled to while on that private property, where the corporation can make and enforce whatever policies it wishes so long as they do not violate the law, which said policy does not. As discussed above, if he's making a stand about what the law should be as opposed to what it actually is, then he's still legally in the wrong, but taking a moral stand.
2. The store folks are wrong because once the dude blows them off, they are not entitled to detain him. That right there is false imprisonment. Law-type folk like to say stupid shit like "the store clerks do not have a self-help remedy", which is a douchebag way of saying that if they really cared about it, their recourse is to call the cops once he leaves the store, or use on-site security to detain him before he leaves, not to have a clerk and the manager detain the guy in the parking lot by blocking his car like that (I'll save parking lots as private vs. public property and other such debates for another time).
3. The cop was wrong about the ID thing, and basically fucked up when faced with an uncooperative guy in the parking lot and made what appears to be a false arrest based on the facts we know. From a procedural standpoint, the cop should have checked the receipt with the inventory of the bag first, which he didn't do until after he arrested the guy, but hey... everybody was acting like an idiot that day.
I find this whole thing to be a hilarious train wreck, and my previous posts indicate that my opinion on the matter falls somewhere in the middle. I really hope everybody somehow loses in the end, though I've already given my predictions elsewhere.
You must be logged in to post.