I concur.:thumb:

Do you think the employee moved the bike to protect it or for some other reason. That is the where your analogy fails.

Given the OP's description of events in his OP. I'm willing to bet that the employee took it upon himself to move the bike. And that he did it for "some other reason."

Sadly, it would seem that there are some here who do not hold with that logic. :(

The "reason" for moving it is irrelevant to possessing it.
The point of the analogy is I would not possess the table after I moved it, nor would the store possess the bike after moving it.

Huh again? Without taking "possession," how did said bike or said table get moved from point A to point B?

Yes... sadly indeed. It is sad that there is no hope for making this store legally responsible for a bike they moved, despite 7 pages desperately attempting to make it so. I too wish it were different, but there are no fantastic extenuating cirycumstances.
Find whatever logic makes you happy, but in the meantime be careful where you deposit your bike while shopping.

So noted. I will go for a bike ride now and not leave my bike unattended at anytime during my ride.

First, you need to actually read the thread. Then you will understand that the period of possession "when moving the bike from point A to point B" is completely irrelevant to any loose claim of custody, control, bailment, or any other web-found legal term used here.

An excellent idea.. Or you could buy a lock, which was suggested in post 5.

I got back from my night bike ride safely. I am happy to report my bike was in my possession, the act of having or taking into control, during my entire ride. Other than some light rain, to my recollection, I did not experience any custody, immediate charge and control, control, act or instance of controlling, bailment, the act of bailing a person or personal property, or any other web-found legal term used here. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.;)

I do own a mini u-lock and cable lock but since my bike was in my possesion, said mini u-lock and cable lock were not necessary.;)

So now your words admit that the employee did poses the bike while moving it. That was improper because his intention of scaring the owner was not a valid reason that the bicycle needed to be moved.

How many here think you can take a cop car for a joy ride and as long as it is not in your possession when they find it, that you will not end up in jail?

This is getting a little silly. I don't know what constitutes "possession" from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, I don't think picking up somebody else's personal property and putting it someplace else constitutes theft if it's within a stone's throw of where they left it and I tell them where I put it. It may not be nice but in most instances it doesn't warrant bringing in the authorities.

If I park my car where parking isn't allowed and the owner of the property (or the city) has my car towed, they aren't stealing it. Now, the city (or whoever) may be technically "in possession" of the vehicle but they haven't committed a crime and there is no cause to call the police.

By the same token if I had encountered the OP's bike in a grocery store aisle and it was preventing me from getting a box of Honey Nut Cheerios, I'd have no bones about moving his bike. I wouldn't be stealing it.

Now, I think the employee was being a dork. If they had some issue with the OP bringing his bike in the store they should have told him right away instead of moving his bike when he left it unattended. However, we don't know that the employee was trying to "scare" the OP. It might really come down to the fact that in the employee's judgement (poor or not), there was no good place inside to keep the bike, so he put it outside.

For the OP to call the cops without making some attempt to locate the bike on his own would have been stupid. Be honest here. Calling the cops is only being suggested because it's a way for the OP to lash out against the store. I prefer my tax money not be used as a way to escalate a hissy fit over where one should park their bike. This was nothing more than a petty squabble that either party could have avoided if they had shown a little of what I'd consider to be common courtesy. Enough of our tax money is being wasted on petty squabbles.

I understand that for many of us our bikes are critically important. They may be our primary means of transportation and it would put is in a difficult spot if something were to happen to them. But if you leave your bike someplace it's not supposed to be, you really don't have a right to go ballistic if somebody moves it.

I wonder if the OP ever called and talked to the manager?

Would the OP please go back to the store and have the employee chime in here? I really want to know more about this fascinating situation.:crash:

OP said he wasn't watching his bike for five minutes. Five minutes is a sure goner in my parts. OP, you're lucky a rapping thug wasn't around the corner. OP, if you were sincerely angry, you would've talked to the manager about said employee. OP, what are going to do about it?

How is this even comparable? Anyone that thinks for a second that there would be an y legal repercussions for the employee moving the bike is living in fantasy land. Personally, I think it is inconsiderate as hell for the op to leave his bike in the middle of an aisle at the store.

I'm sorry, but I (and I am sure others here) don't "buy" your "analogy." From all appearances the employee took it upon himself to move the OP's bicycle. Then approached the OP and instead of (according to the OP) telling him that he had moved his bicycle asks "are you looking for a bicycle?" Thus causing the OP a measure of mental anguish and embarrassing the business. And according to several here if an employee causes a business embarrassment whether on the clock or off the clock that is legitimate cause for termination.

And given that apparently the employee did it on his own, who would have been responsible if after the employee took it upon himself to move the bike outside that it was stolen?

As has been said, the employee had NO bloody business touching, let alone moving the OP's bicycle.

So then one should surmise then that if you went shopping and someone took your car out for a joy ride but returned it before you noticed that it was missing that it wasn't really stolen or in their "possession."

From all accounts from the OP the employee apparently took it upon himself to move the OP's bicycle, the employee then compounded things by approaching the OP and instead of telling the OP that he (the employee) had moved it outside, asks the OP "Are you looking for a bicycle?" Not even being man/adult enough to ask "Are you looking for YOUR bicycle?" But "Are you looking for a bicycle."

The bottom line is that the store employee should never have touched let alone moved the OP's bicycle.

Uh, if the store employee didn't have "control" of the OP's bicycle then how did he move it? If the store employee didn't have possession of the OP's bicycle then how did he move it? The store employee DID in fact take possession (regardless of how short a period of time) of the OP's bicycle, the store employe DID in fact take control of the OP's bicycle, and the store employee DID in fact take the OP's bicycle into custody. Even grade school children know that you don't touch another persons stuff.

You are so correct...

Agreed, but I don't think that we'll get MNBikeguy to admit that. He seems to think that the store employee's taking possession of the bike doesn't mean that the store employee was actually in possession or control of the OP's bicycle. Despite all apparent common sense to the contrary.

I'm willing to bet that if one did as you described that they'd get to take a second "joy ride" in said police car, only this time they would be in the backseat of said police car, wearing a lovely pair of matching/connecting bracelets. And depending on how many priors/strikes against them that they'd be looking at some vary SERIOUS jail time.