Crime & Punishment: Man on Trial for Impersonating Cop in Video Game Dispute

Crime & Punishment: Man on Trial for Impersonating Cop in Video Game Dispute

October 9, 2007
Steven Scott Sather carried a badge.

But the 46-year-old California man was a building code enforcement official, not a policeman. Prosecutors say he claimed to be a cop and threatened to arrest a Target store manager who refused to refund his money for a defective computer game. 

As reported by the Modesto Bee, a September trial resulted in a hung jury; prosecutors are deciding whether to take Sather back to court.

Sather's troubles began on Independence Day, 2006, when he tried to return Cars after being unable to get it running on three separate computers. From the Bee:
A store security camera shows Sather at a customer service counter, flashing his badge for about one second as he spoke with a manager and another employee.

Store employees told police Sather identified himself as a police officer three times and insisted that they were breaking the law by not giving him a full refund for a defective product.

They said Sather promised to return to the store in uniform, with handcuffs, to arrest the manager, who would offer only a replacement video or a game of equal value.

Sather's attorney called it "a customer service situation that went awry." 

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
It sounds like an open and shut case of someone pretending to be a police officer. Why the jury hung I'm not sure though.
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptProsecutors say he claimed to be a cop and threatened to arrest a Target store manager who refused to refund his money for a defective computer game. As reported by the Modesto Bee, a September trial resulted in a hung jury; … [...]
@ InJM

Because no one likes not being able to return a defective product. But I admit it was rather foolish of him to try and use a badge to get the refund. I would hate it even if he was a real cop.
Lol...
This is absurd...
Wait, is it the Cars, movie or video game? my work filter won't let me get to the link.
@EZK

quite. As i understand it, shops are legally obliged to refund a product up to 1 year after selling it, on producing a legitimate reciept. after that, its up to them.
strange how most game shops dont adhere to that.
Sather’s attorney called it “a customer service situation that went awry.”

He then continued, under his breath "...due to my client being a dumbass."


And no, it's not illegal to refuse the refund. Most stores that sell PC games have a strict policy of not refunding them, but rather exchanging them. This keeps people from buying games, copying them, and then taking them back to the store.
And I agree with E. Zachary Knight, this would piss me off even if he was a real cop.
They also have the legal right to refuse a refund if the product being returned is so badly damaged that it would not have been sold in that condition in the first place.

I've rejected a fair number of people expecting refunds for games that had more scratches on it than a chopping board when I used to work in retail...
Target (and Wal-Mart, etc) have a policy in place to not allow full cash refunds of movies, games or music. this is in part to prevent piracy (i buy a game, go home, burn it, return it for money. yay, free games).

what these stores should do is advertise this fact more readily, but other than that they're not wrong.
The store didn't do anything wrong. The person at fault was the man claiming to be a police officer. Then again, he would still be at fault if he were a police officer. In the end, he was attempting to bully the store into doing what he wanted it to do.

@ some guy

I think my local GameStop will give you cash for a returned game, but its only half of what they offer as a store credit which is half of the retail price. Not completely sure, but I think they do.
wtf lol this is just silly :p .
Even if he was really a cop - you can't go arresting someone for not taking something you bought back, lol.

I don't think anyone is legally obligated to take anything back after a purchase, 'All sales are final' - and nor should they ever be.

I'd guarantee you I could get that game running on his PC, assuming his hardware will support it, and if his hardware's not - maybe he should read the box first - not the companies fault he's incompetent.
@Overcast

I agree with you that it was probably his computers not having the correct requirements to run the games. Funny how the specs for his computers are never mentioned.
Regarding refunds/returns: AFAIK, there is no law anywhere - and certainly no Federal law - requiring any merchant to refund. The following link supports this:

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/purchases-and-returns

In short, most states say that retailers should (or must, in some cases) post a list of their returns policy if it strays from the common social belief of what it should be.

Even if a merchant says that the sale is final, and the product being sold is advertised as, "As-Is," the consumer may still have a remedy if the item is substantively different from what the seller says it is. Yes, this means that an XBox being sold as "Works - As-Is, no returns," can legally be returned if it arrives DOA.
Add: The remedy does not always include a full refund.
I work at Wal-Mart in the electronic department and the policies are posted in several places throughout the store and everything is made quite clear yet there are times the customer service desk get chewed out by customers who think for some reason the policy doesn't apply to them. Most places simply do not accept returns for opened video games or other software.
I think what this guy did was completely wrong and he should be punished in some manner. Impersonating an officer should never be allowed, and I doubt the manager or the other clerks deserved the treatment.

Despite Walmart's policy a manager can override it and give you the money back. This has happened to me twice in at least 4 years time of buying moves and games there. I have had some really strange cases at Wal-Mart. My first copy of GTA: Vice City had no game inside. I had to go all the way back and get another one. The game had been sealed and everything, just empty. I opened the other one there in front of them. No worries there. However, sometimes you cannot get a replacement disc to swap out. There was no copy of one movie I had bought but was ruined by another customer and repackaged for sale. They gave me the money back no problem. This was the local store.

Once in Charlotte I had bought some Stephen King box set that was missing the worst movies in the package. It seriously had all the good ones accounted for, but was missing "Kujo" and others. So my wife and I had to drive back to Charlotte and by then I was not keen to getting it replaced. The quality of the discs inside was horrible. I could have printed different labels. The packaging was in shambles once you opened the plastic and it just not worth the money. They had other copies exactly as poor shape as this and I demanded my money back on those grounds. The manager balked and I told him he could not sell me such horrible merchandise that was deceptively not what you were led to believe it was. This was not a cheap $20 box set, but more than $45+.

After nearly ten minutes of arguing, him telling me the DMCA made it illegal to sell since it could have been copied and me refuting that the issue had anything to do with the DMCA and instead POS quality packaging, discs, potentially missing items, and false advertising I had the money back and he was left with his crap back in his hand.

The only time Wal-Mart has ever denied a return on an item that they had a policy on was some karaoke discs I bought. I had bought an Apex 3 disc machine that said it played karaoke discs. No mention of whether it did CD+G or DVD based discs. The clerk wasn't sure and I got a couple of discs to test it. It was my fault to not have done more research on videohelp.com on the model or read the manual THEN opened the discs. The model only played DVD karaoke discs it seemed. They offered to take the DVD back without question but not the software. So, in reality I would have been better off had I taken that offer. The DVD player lasted far less than a year and taught me a lot about discs. If you don't know if it will run on the machine, do the research. Come back and if it's still there buy it. If you don't find it again, an Internet purchase will likely be just as cost effective.
all of the targets in my area have large signs posted both in the electronic dept and at the customer service desk that state they will only replace with the same item, for defective product, on cds/dvd/software.
Prehaps if the bastards did refunds for "bad" games there would not have been a issue....
I don't understand why the jury hung, the guy broke the law. Apparently he didn't read the fine print saying that you can't get a cash refund for opened software-- and personally, I have yet to find a store that will give you one.
This guy tried to turn a civil dispute into a criminal dispute. Not the best thing to do when (1) you are not actually a cop, and (2) you threaten to arrest the manager.
I was able to return No One Lives Forever (GOTY Edition) because the packaging advertised that it contained a Soundtrack CD, but after doing research on the internet I determined that the 'small box' edition did not contain the Soundtrack disc.

I told them that was my main reason for purchasing that version, and since exchanging for another box would result in the same problem, I convinced the manager to let me return it. It was essentially misleading advertising about the contents of the package, which should never be the basis for a sale.
If this was about not being able to return defetive software than I would be on his side no matter what threats he made(other than to the health of someone)

BUT this is a case about pretending to be a police officer and acting in a way that would have been abusive of power for a real police officer...

The guy got lucky that someone on the jury hates target or software return policies enough to ignore his clear guilt in this instance....
Why does this remind me so of Jack's pointless "sting operations".
shady8x
true we have enough bad cops we dont need fake dumb ones, still I would liek the system to move back to keeping a consumer list and black listing thos that go over the store limit than the woefully one sided retarded you bought it you broke it menteailty..

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 11:21am
Valdearg: You really think that people who are smart enough to practice law REALLY believe that this law will prevent them from expressing
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:20am
Valdearg: The catholic teachings, perhaps, but certainly, there are PLENTY of Catholics who condone violence and hate. Just like these guys.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:19am
gellymatos: violence or hate against anyone.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:18am
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:15am
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:14am
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:11am
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:10am
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:09am
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:08am
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:07am
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:06am
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:05am
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:59am
Valdearg: Honestly, the only thing I can imagine is the plaintiffs think it's their religious right to perpetrate violent criminal acts against homosexuals. Unfortunately, knowing some folks like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they did believe that.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:59am
Valdearg: @AE: I know, right? The only thing that law does is make a violent criminal act more severe if it was motivated by a hatred of homosexuals.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:43am
Andrew Eisen: What's amazing is the folks at that Law Center can't seem to read plain English that states that nothing in the law restricts someone's right to think what they want or say what they want.
Login or register to post shouts