1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

man freaks out in Verizon store

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Lee S., May 14, 2004.

  1. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > If you really think that's enough of a punishment, then you are not
    > thinking.
    >
    > People have to pay big time for their momentary lapses.


    And a lot of times, it is a ridiculous amount that is made up
    (far above the actual amount of money it cost the person)
    by a person that likes to get easy money from a person
    that just made a simple mistake.

    > He should pay for all the actual physical damages to cellphone and
    > computer equipment. That's a no brainer.


    Yes

    > How about the fact that the store had to close, couldn't sell phones or
    > service, yet still had to pay employees, pay for rent on the building
    > that day, pay for electricity, etc..?


    That is part of the damages which is included with the destroyed equipment.


    > Aside from that, the store's insurance will pay for everything, and it's
    > the insurance company that will go after this guy. Do you really think
    > they will just let it go paying for just the stuff he physically
    > destroyed?


    The insurance will not need to pay anything if the
    person that caused the damage pays for it.

    > The insurance company will get this guy for broken equipment.
    > The Verizon store will sue this guy in small claims court for their
    > insurance deductible.


    What deductible will there be if he pays for it?

    > Then somebody will sue this guy because that somebody will never be able
    > to walk into a store again without the fear of having a cellphone thrown
    > at them.


    That is a frivolous lawsuit, and should be thrown out by any judge that
    has two brain cells for a brain.

    > Then, a Verizon employee will sue verizon because they couldn't secure a
    > safe working environment.


    And that person really needs to get a life.
    If they are that worried about safety, they shouldn't get out of bed in the
    morning.

    > Cingular, TMobile, Nextel and AT&T will install metal detectors at their
    > stores and hire staff psychologists to interview people before they are
    > allowed into the actual selling area.


    And I will sue verizon because............
    They was not able to fix a tower promptly because,
    the manager was too worried about the man that freaked out
    which caused him not to send out the repair crew promptly,
    that caused the icecream delivery person to not make his rounds
    in time because he couldn't make a call, and that caused the
    icecream to partially melt before it got to the stores, and when I got
    the icecream, it had hard ice spots in it from partially melting.
    And the hard icy spots totally destroyed my enjoyment of eating that
    bucket of icecream.
    A experience that I will never be able to replace!!!!!!
    SO I will sue verizon for a billion dollars, because they was
    directly responsible for the icy spots in my icecream!!!

    Now that makes perfect sense doesn't it. :)
     



    › See More: man freaks out in Verizon store
  2. alphageek

    alphageek Guest

    Judgement for the plaintiff...next case.
    "N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.att.net> wrote in message
    news:r4Rpc.71164$Ut1.1743113@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > If you really think that's enough of a punishment, then you are not
    > > thinking.
    > >
    > > People have to pay big time for their momentary lapses.

    >
    > And a lot of times, it is a ridiculous amount that is made up
    > (far above the actual amount of money it cost the person)
    > by a person that likes to get easy money from a person
    > that just made a simple mistake.
    >
    > > He should pay for all the actual physical damages to cellphone and
    > > computer equipment. That's a no brainer.

    >
    > Yes
    >
    > > How about the fact that the store had to close, couldn't sell phones or
    > > service, yet still had to pay employees, pay for rent on the building
    > > that day, pay for electricity, etc..?

    >
    > That is part of the damages which is included with the destroyed

    equipment.
    >
    >
    > > Aside from that, the store's insurance will pay for everything, and it's
    > > the insurance company that will go after this guy. Do you really think
    > > they will just let it go paying for just the stuff he physically
    > > destroyed?

    >
    > The insurance will not need to pay anything if the
    > person that caused the damage pays for it.
    >
    > > The insurance company will get this guy for broken equipment.
    > > The Verizon store will sue this guy in small claims court for their
    > > insurance deductible.

    >
    > What deductible will there be if he pays for it?
    >
    > > Then somebody will sue this guy because that somebody will never be able
    > > to walk into a store again without the fear of having a cellphone thrown
    > > at them.

    >
    > That is a frivolous lawsuit, and should be thrown out by any judge that
    > has two brain cells for a brain.
    >
    > > Then, a Verizon employee will sue verizon because they couldn't secure a
    > > safe working environment.

    >
    > And that person really needs to get a life.
    > If they are that worried about safety, they shouldn't get out of bed in

    the
    > morning.
    >
    > > Cingular, TMobile, Nextel and AT&T will install metal detectors at their
    > > stores and hire staff psychologists to interview people before they are
    > > allowed into the actual selling area.

    >
    > And I will sue verizon because............
    > They was not able to fix a tower promptly because,
    > the manager was too worried about the man that freaked out
    > which caused him not to send out the repair crew promptly,
    > that caused the icecream delivery person to not make his rounds
    > in time because he couldn't make a call, and that caused the
    > icecream to partially melt before it got to the stores, and when I got
    > the icecream, it had hard ice spots in it from partially melting.
    > And the hard icy spots totally destroyed my enjoyment of eating that
    > bucket of icecream.
    > A experience that I will never be able to replace!!!!!!
    > SO I will sue verizon for a billion dollars, because they was
    > directly responsible for the icy spots in my icecream!!!
    >
    > Now that makes perfect sense doesn't it. :)
    >
    >
     
  3. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.att.net> wrote:

    > The insurance will not need to pay anything if the
    > person that caused the damage pays for it.


    Right. This happens all the time. The insurance company pays the claim
    and then nails the person who is actually supposed to be financially
    responsible ...

    >> The Verizon store will sue this guy in small claims court for their
    >> insurance deductible.

    >
    > What deductible will there be if he pays for it?


    They'll pay a deductible if the insurance company covers the claim, even
    if the insurance company subsequently collects from the guy.

    Personally, I can understand his frustration but I still hope someone nails
    his family jewels to the wall. Should he be required to pay punitive damages?
    Probably not (and at least in the state where I live, punitive damages have
    been eliminated from the legal process). Should he be required to reimburse
    the store? Hell yeah. Should he get hit with criminal charges? You bet.

    This wasn't a spurious incident. It *was* premeditated. Even if he only
    originally intended to spout off at the employees.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  4. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.att.net> wrote:
    :>
    :> On the other hand, I would like to see the guy get jailed for assault.
    :> What an asshole. Nothing justifies that behavior, and I hope he is
    :> properly punished.
    :
    : Well....
    : If someone ever catches you J walking, I will make sure you are
    : punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    When I jaywalk, I'm not smashing up the contents of someone's store, or
    injuring them (unless I dent someone's bumper when they smash into me -
    but then that would be my fault and my problem, I grant you that).

    : There is no justification for J walking, and it creates
    : a hazard to the person and the drivers around the violator.

    Yes, but that is just a *potential* for injury/damage. This guy was
    throwing shit around and trashing the store.

    -Charles

    --
    Charles Robinson
    Minneapolis, MN
    charlesr@visi.com
    http://www.visi.com/~charlesr
     
  5. speedy

    speedy Guest

    N9WOS wrote:
    > Well....
    > If someone ever catches you J walking, I will make sure you are
    > punished to the fullest extent of the law.
    >
    > There is no justification for J walking, and it creates
    > a hazard to the person and the drivers around the violator.


    You wont get much punishment in Akron, OH. They hadnt had any accidents
    from jaywalking in the last 20 years so they removed the law from their
    codes!

    -SP
     
  6. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    "alphageek" <nomailplease@uhdelfia.not> wrote in
    news:apqdnaKVm-ht9DjdRVn-vg@adelphia.com:

    > If the employees treated him the way the employees in the stores I've
    > visited treat customers, I can understand his frustration and
    > contempt. What a useless bunch of people these are. I think they are
    > trained to not acknowledge customers. I've never wanted to throw
    > anything, but I'm on drugs.
    >


    I find it helpful to get their attention if you bring a portable air horn,
    the kind you'd put in a small boat powered by freon. Most people cannot
    just carry on ignoring me if I give them a 20-second-blast that empties out
    the Radio Shack and Spencer's Gifts next door.....(c;

    Larry

    If you see a little old lady painfully standing there, waiting for her
    phone to get "fixed", don't forget to steal one of the sales associates
    plush chairs for her to sit in..... Dare them to take it away from her.
     
  7. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
    news:466dnaYWfq2alTXd4p2dnA@lmi.net:

    > N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >> The insurance will not need to pay anything if the
    >> person that caused the damage pays for it.

    >
    > Right. This happens all the time. The insurance company pays the claim
    > and then nails the person who is actually supposed to be financially
    > responsible ...
    >


    You all failed to notice this irate customer was a 20-year-old, who is
    probably "sue proof", having no property, money in any account a lawyer can
    get his grubby hands on and living with two other drunks in a rented
    apartment while he looks for work, having lost his job as dishwasher at
    Applebee's when he didn't show up for work 3 days in a row.

    There ARE benefits to having nothing-of-value, at times.....like these.
     
  8. Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:

    > I find it helpful to get their attention if you bring a portable air horn,
    > the kind you'd put in a small boat powered by freon. Most people cannot
    > just carry on ignoring me if I give them a 20-second-blast that empties out
    > the Radio Shack and Spencer's Gifts next door.....(c;


    Pull that kind of crap at a store I ran and you'd find yourself booted
    very quickly.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  9. Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:

    > You all failed to notice this irate customer was a 20-year-old, who is
    > probably "sue proof", having no property, money in any account a lawyer can
    > get his grubby hands on and living with two other drunks in a rented
    > apartment while he looks for work, having lost his job as dishwasher at
    > Applebee's when he didn't show up for work 3 days in a row.
    >
    > There ARE benefits to having nothing-of-value, at times.....like these.


    You failed to realize that with the crap he was doing, he's probably
    facing *criminal* charges. The property damage was a relatively minor issue
    and the judge can force the asshole to reimburse Verizon and hold him in
    contempt of court if he fails to pay them back, which means he's also facing
    jail time for not paying them back (potentially).

    Dunno about you, but if someone gets angry enough at me that they're throwing
    stuff, my first call will not be to my lawyer to find out about filing a
    civil suit - it'll be to 911.

    You, however, are free to file a civil complaint against anyone doing the
    same thing to you... :)

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  10. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
    news:qMqdneP02-BdWF7dRVn-vg@lmi.net:

    >
    > You failed to realize that with the crap he was doing, he's probably
    > facing *criminal* charges. The property damage was a relatively minor
    > issue and the judge can force the asshole to reimburse Verizon and
    > hold him in contempt of court if he fails to pay them back, which
    > means he's also facing jail time for not paying them back
    > (potentially).
    >
    > Dunno about you, but if someone gets angry enough at me that they're
    > throwing stuff, my first call will not be to my lawyer to find out
    > about filing a civil suit - it'll be to 911.
    >
    > You, however, are free to file a civil complaint against anyone doing
    > the same thing to you... :)
    >


    Wow, Stevie, settle, SETTLE! You off your meds?

    I suppose I can imagine a testosterone-charged young man fed up with being
    treated like shit at a Verizon store, his favorite toyphone full of games
    trashed, tearing into the store that screwed him. Hell, I've seen 40-
    somethings mad as hell.

    Isn't that why it's SOOO important to make SURE they're under a CONTRACT,
    so we can screw 'em and they are stuck with us? Why else would these half-
    assed companies need a contract?....

    I'm quite surprised more of these "incidents" don't happen, especially in
    malls where they're all trying to impress their girlfriends all trussed up
    in black with Wicca fingernail polish.

    Larry
     
  11. John Golden

    John Golden Guest

    In article <Xns9501B2976BCCBw4csc@216.168.3.44>, noone@home.com says...
    > Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
    > news:qMqdneP02-BdWF7dRVn-vg@lmi.net:
    >
    > >
    > > You failed to realize that with the crap he was doing, he's probably
    > > facing *criminal* charges. The property damage was a relatively minor
    > > issue and the judge can force the asshole to reimburse Verizon and
    > > hold him in contempt of court if he fails to pay them back, which
    > > means he's also facing jail time for not paying them back
    > > (potentially).
    > >
    > > Dunno about you, but if someone gets angry enough at me that they're
    > > throwing stuff, my first call will not be to my lawyer to find out
    > > about filing a civil suit - it'll be to 911.
    > >
    > > You, however, are free to file a civil complaint against anyone doing
    > > the same thing to you... :)
    > >

    >
    > Wow, Stevie, settle, SETTLE! You off your meds?
    >
    > I suppose I can imagine a testosterone-charged young man fed up with being
    > treated like shit at a Verizon store, his favorite toyphone full of games
    > trashed, tearing into the store that screwed him. Hell, I've seen 40-
    > somethings mad as hell.
    >
    > Isn't that why it's SOOO important to make SURE they're under a CONTRACT,
    > so we can screw 'em and they are stuck with us? Why else would these half-
    > assed companies need a contract?....
    >
    > I'm quite surprised more of these "incidents" don't happen, especially in
    > malls where they're all trying to impress their girlfriends all trussed up
    > in black with Wicca fingernail polish.
    >
    > Larry
    >

    I don't care how bad the service is, the behavior was inappropriate to
    teh point of being criminal. If you Google the guy that went berserk in
    the store, he turns out to be a collegiate wrestler competing in the
    180 lb. (or thereabouts) weight class.

    1. I'd be pretty intimidated; and
    2. I'd press charges. It might teach the guy to grow up and stop acting
    out.
     
  12. Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:

    > Wow, Stevie, settle, SETTLE! You off your meds?


    Dude, the last time I said anything *remotely* like that to you you got
    pissed at me. Pot, kettle, black?

    No one is saying the guy didn't have a right to be upset.

    You're saying assault is justifiable because a company isn't treating you
    right. You're saying that property damage is also justifiable because
    the company isn't treating you right. Am I reading you correctly?

    You completely missed my point. You said it was a good thing the kid was
    judgement proof (we don't know that for sure, but it's a logical assumption).
    I said that he could be brought up on criminal charges, and if the judge
    forced him to reimburse Verizon as a result (and it can be and has been
    done before in property damage cases), and he does not, he can be held in
    contempt and thrown in jail. This is a simple fact, to which you replied
    that I was off my meds and went on your standard "Cellular companies suck"
    rant.

    How does me stating a fact mean I'm "off my meds"?

    I think the last time you got upset at me, it was because I said you were
    trolling. Guess what: this last post made you sound like a *stupid* troll,
    which is a shame, because I KNOW you're not stupid.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  13. Kev

    Kev Guest

    same here...one word: "security!!"

    You gave up any chance of me wanting to help you by being a d!ck.....I'm
    quite sure the sales staff of any establishmen are allowed to refuse
    service, and you are on private property after all. Imagine having someone
    walk into your home and acting like that, what would you do?

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:qMqdneD02-COWF7dRVn-vg@lmi.net...
    > Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I find it helpful to get their attention if you bring a portable air

    horn,
    > > the kind you'd put in a small boat powered by freon. Most people cannot
    > > just carry on ignoring me if I give them a 20-second-blast that empties

    out
    > > the Radio Shack and Spencer's Gifts next door.....(c;

    >
    > Pull that kind of crap at a store I ran and you'd find yourself booted
    > very quickly.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /

    sjsobol@JustThe.net
    > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
    >
     
  14. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
    >
    > Pull that kind of crap at a store I ran and you'd find yourself booted
    > very quickly.
    >


    I would have him arrested for disturbing the peace and assault.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFAxbMo1p0e3NXsrtERAuV6AJ9RBifSrV67DqzRsofV8FVHnREwsQCfR6un
    qdXD5E4vI/27kOJtesp0n0Q=
    =EHOB
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
  15. Christian

    Christian Guest

    Last week I visited a VZW retail store, could not get waited on so I just
    dropped the hands free adopter in the middle of the floor and walked out
    followed by the words Sir Sir please come back. I just order the hands free
    adopter off the internet.

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:qMqdneD02-COWF7dRVn-vg@lmi.net...
    > Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I find it helpful to get their attention if you bring a portable air

    horn,
    > > the kind you'd put in a small boat powered by freon. Most people cannot
    > > just carry on ignoring me if I give them a 20-second-blast that empties

    out
    > > the Radio Shack and Spencer's Gifts next door.....(c;

    >
    > Pull that kind of crap at a store I ran and you'd find yourself booted
    > very quickly.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /

    sjsobol@JustThe.net
    > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
    >
     
  16. X-No-Archive: yes
    Organization: Veldy's Brewery
    X-Homebrew: Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Hombrew!
    X-LearnToBrew: http://www.howtobrew.com
    X-Jokes: http://www.veldy.net/mailman/listinfo/jokes
    Date: 09 Jun 2004 13:42:48 GMT
    Lines: 25
    NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Jun 2004 08:42:48 CDT
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@octanews.net
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.verizon:147494

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
    >
    > Assault? No, not for just blowing an air horn. Disturbing the peace, quite
    > possibly. Depends on how irritated I am at the time.
    >


    Oh yes, assault. An airhorn EASILY exceeds 120dB. Guaranteed to cause
    some hearing damage if near you. I would certainly file the charge if
    this were done in a store that I own.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAxxPY1p0e3NXsrtERAvruAJ96BYAjse/uHMWs/LsAR86tqhInqQCeKHks
    0RJ3lNAs8cuKC5fV/VH2lMQ=
    =g5x1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
  17. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:24:28 -0400, "Christian" <nomail@nomail.com>
    wrote:

    >adopter


    Adopter????

    Adopt what children, dogs, cats?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
     
  18. Quick

    Quick Guest

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Christian <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
    >> Last week I visited a VZW retail store, could not get waited on so I
    >> just dropped the hands free adopter in the middle of the floor and
    >> walked out followed by the words Sir Sir please come back. I just
    >> order the hands free adopter off the internet.

    >
    > That's another thing altogether. I wouldn't consider that unacceptable
    > behavior if you were upset. But that's nowhere near what Larry was
    > suggesting.


    Acceptable? Why?

    We didn't hear details. And what difference would they make anyway?

    Or did you mean that the behavior would not cause you to take any
    action against the person? Say, for vandalizing, littering, or causing a
    disturbance? How about if they went to the rack and emptied *all* the
    items onto the floor? I don't believe "how much" or magnitude enters
    into the determination of right or wrong, only the response to it.

    Being upset (in this case) is no excuse for any behavior that
    wouldn't be acceptable if not upset. My 4yr olds do this sort
    of thing pretty often but they know it's not acceptable.

    Walk out (after replacing item).
    Complain to manager.
    Complain to VZW.
    Broadcast your bad experience.
    Terminate business relationship with VZW.
    Sue for ETF due to lack of service.
    etc.

    All "acceptable" behavior.

    -Quick
     
  19. Quick <dhorwitz@nospamcisco.com> wrote:

    > Or did you mean that the behavior would not cause you to take any
    > action against the person? Say, for vandalizing, littering, or causing a
    > disturbance? How about if they went to the rack and emptied *all* the
    > items onto the floor? I don't believe "how much" or magnitude enters
    > into the determination of right or wrong, only the response to it.


    I personally would put the merchandise on a table somewhere, not drop it
    on the floor, but:

    (a) Vandalizing? How? I don't think so.
    (b) Littering you could make a cause for.
    (c) Causing a disturbance? If you just *walk out*?

    And if the person is already angry, I would just (as a store employee) walk
    over and pick up the product and put it back. If you think pressing charges
    for littering is the proper response in such a situation, my guess is that
    you've never worked in retail.

    > Walk out (after replacing item).


    OK, well that was *almost* what was being discussed, now wasn't it?

    The difference is that you are replacing the item first. I agree that that's
    the best way to handle things, but my guess is that the OP's intent wasn't
    to break anything or cause a scene, but rather to make a statement. Going
    after him for *littering* is an extremely heavy-handed response.

    Feel free to disagree with me...

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
     
  20. Quick

    Quick Guest

    Steven J Sobol wrote:
    > Quick <dhorwitz@nospamcisco.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Or did you mean that the behavior would not cause you to take any
    >> action against the person? Say, for vandalizing, littering, or
    >> causing a disturbance? How about if they went to the rack and
    >> emptied *all* the items onto the floor? I don't believe "how much"
    >> or magnitude enters into the determination of right or wrong, only
    >> the response to it.

    >
    > (a) Vandalizing? How? I don't think so.


    It's a matter of degree. Would emptying all the product in the
    store onto the floor be vandalizing? Or does one have to destroy
    something?

    > (b) Littering you could make a cause for.
    > (c) Causing a disturbance? If you just *walk out*?


    It's not the walking out, it's dropping stuff on the floor.
    Again a matter of degree.

    > And if the person is already angry, I would just (as a store
    > employee) walk over and pick up the product and put it back. If you
    > think pressing charges for littering is the proper response in such a
    > situation, my guess is that you've never worked in retail.
    >
    >> Walk out (after replacing item).

    >
    > OK, well that was *almost* what was being discussed, now wasn't it?
    >
    > The difference is that you are replacing the item first. I agree that
    > that's the best way to handle things, but my guess is that the OP's
    > intent wasn't to break anything or cause a scene, but rather to make
    > a statement. Going after him for *littering* is an extremely
    > heavy-handed response.
    >
    > Feel free to disagree with me...


    I was not addressing the *severity* of the act or suggesting that
    it warranted a response (I certainly don't think so).

    I was nit picking your statement that it was "acceptable". Technically
    I don't think it is "acceptable".

    Do I think it warrants more response than a glance? No.
    Would I draw an overall negative opinion of the person because of this? No.
    Would I think it abnormal behavior and surprising? No.
    Do I classify it as "acceptable" behavior? No.

    -Quick
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?