Long story made short. I went grocery shopping one night without my husband as he was working. I made a "looking" trip out of it also as that was only the second time in a year I'd been shopping without hubby. I looked in each department, took my time, browsing and planning a Christmas list, etc. I was in the store a couple of hours, gathered close to $100 dollars in groceries, checked out, right after I left the check out had a police officer (was working his paid guard detail for walmart) and a walmart "loss prevention" guy approach me, take my arms and tell me I must accompany them to the back room. I smiled and asked them what was going on. They repeated three times "You need to come with us to the back room." I refused, and told them I didn 't understand. The loss prevention guy said, " I believe you have some of my merchandise on you." I still didn't understand. I said "I do, I just bought groceries." He said, "No you shoplifted..." I was in shock. I said "What???" He said "I believe you have stolen some of my merchandise and you have to go to the back room so we can search you. If you refuse to let us search you the guard will force you to let me search you."

I was afraid, in a state of shock, and totally dumbfounded. The stupid loss prevention man repeated you have my merchandise in your purse." I told him basically everything I have came from here... My shoes I'm wearing, my pants, blouse, purse, makeup, everything in my purse... my wallet, etc." He repeated they were taking me to the back room and searching me or either the cop (a Tangipohoa sheriff working his guard detail at walmart) would would "take me down" right there.

They made me very hurt and angry. I had not stolen anything and if they were going to search me do it there at the front of the store... The cop repeated three times "I'm going to take you down, if you don't come to the back with us!!" I asked him what he meant. He said ," I'm going to tackle you to the floor right here and take you down, and strip search you here if you don't come to the back" He grabbed at my arm and I jerked away from him. I told loss prevention I was going to sue the hell out of walmart for their accusations and treatment of me. This was only happening because we'd been complaining about service their and made several attempts to get management to do something over the stores treatment of us and customers in general. The cop yelled, " Are you threating me, I'll arrest you for threatening a police officer right now." I asked how was I threatening him just because I'd told loss prevention I'd sue walmart...??

They ~~ Tangapohoa sheriff and walmart loss prevention took me to the "back room" and held me 3 hours. The loss prevention guy kept threatening to have the cop attack me if I didn't submit to a search of my purse. The loss prevention guy took a tube of unopened lipstick I had (not in a box... just unused) and took a small can of off insect repellent I had. He said "This is $23 dollars worth of my merchandise you stole." I told him "No, I bought that weeks ago... I carry off because we have animals on our property 4 miles from were we live and we go by on the way home to feed, check them and tend them, hence the insect repellent. " The walmart loss prevention guy was on a "walmart junky loss prevention ADRENALINE high"....He kept telling the cop "My adrenaline is just pumping... it's so exciting to "catch" someone it's such an adrenaline rush...it's like an overdose...: Even the cop told him to hush that he should not be saying that in front of me.

The cop told loss prevention he had only had $23 dollars worth of supposed shoplifted merchandise... he would have to let me go, as walmart only prosecuted over $25 dollars. The walmart prevention NUT case ARENALINE high guy said "NO, I'll find something else to include... " and begin digging in my purse again.... he came out with a cell phone...said I stole it. I told him, "Well, that's strange as it's been registered in my name for nearly 2 years....so how did I steal it tonight?" He literally threw the cell phone back at me. He begin digging again in my purse... He took a small flashlilght that looked new... He said I must have stole it and added it to his "List" of stolen merchandise. Then he took my extra OPENED batteries for my second small flashlight... and begin adding again... He said, "I now have $58 dollars in stolen merchandise, so we can prosecue you now."

I told him, "NO you now have MY posessions you are claiming are your merchandise... and you have NO right to hold me three hours, and take my things, and tell me I cannot call my husband. You also have no right to threaten me as I've done nothing wrong." I told him and the cop I was calling my husband and my sister and would also being hiring an attorney handle the matter for me.

We hired an attorney, we have a court date this month for "Motions"... We (husband and I) have paid $2500 to have myself represented in this stupid, unsettling rediculous matter caused by a stupid, bored walmart loss prevention guy with nothing else to do but find an innocent female shopper to pick on just to get his adrenaline rush. NOTICE ~~ they never bothered us as long as my husband and I were together. The guy even brought up the fact we had been complaining on previous visits.

This is a CLEAR CUT case of Walmart abusing and harassing good customers. We spent probably a $800.00 to $1000 per month in Walmart before this stupidity happened. So Walmart will not only lose $10,000 per year or more in business from us, but I will do everything possible to make the public aware of just how terribly bad some of the locations / employees are in their treatment of honest, paying customers.

I also find it VERY inappropreate for a Tangipohoa parish sheriffs deputy to tell a female shopper "If you don't go to the back room with us and allow us to search you I will TAKE you down right her and tackle you to the floor." Is this not police intimidation without cause? Before all was said and done that night, even the cop was telling the walmart prevention guy to just let me go... BECAUSE even he realized their mistake and that the walmart loss prevention guy first name Tom, was on an adrenaline RUSH and had made an error.

I even told the walmart prevention guy I would pay for my own items, give him the $58 dollars cash just to have the whole stupid matter dropped. He said "I can't let you go, it's gone too far, if I do we, and walmart will be liable."

The public, and ALL WALMART shopperse everywhere need to BEWARE of how Walmart's so called "loss prevention" people act. YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR WIFE, YOUR DAUGHTER, SON, MOTHER, or ANYONE in your family can have this happened to them, at any given time in any given walmart... PLEASE BEWARE.

I've researched Walmart extensively over the past 4 months...and found horror store after horror story of how walmart loss prevention staff have harassed, attacked and even killed customers they "thought" were shoplifting... I have wondered at times if I had not went to the back room with them that night, would the cop have "tackled" me and taken me down as he'd threatened? Would they have set on my back collasping me chest as I read they did with one innocent man they wrongly accused of shoplifting?

He died... he was a master carpenter, father, outstanding community member, but still walmart "loss prevention" targeted him as a "shoplifter" tackled him in the parking lot, (4 men) and sat on his back collasping his chest so he could not breath until he died. A child lost it's father, a wife lost her husband, all for naught... All because 4 guys from walmart loss prevention were on an adrenaline high to "catch" someone... They didn't find any of their "merchandise" on this man according to the story I read. HOW SAD. How absolutely SAD. I personally think all four people who attacked this man should be convicted of murder.

God knows this sort of abuse is more than wrong.

Being a dick is protected too (free speech and all), but that doesn't mean you don't deserve a beat down. Consequences and all that...

If that were to happen in a card game, then the pot ends where you go all in, it's not just an automatic loss of money because some other guy has more than you. It wouldn't really be a game otherwise except for who is richer...

They have much more resources than you do and can keep things tied up in court, burning money on both sides, until you have spend all your savings, maxed your credit cards, and taken out and pissed away a second mortgage.

Then, like a crusty old card player, they "raise you $1."

You cry "but I have no more money!"

They cackle and say, "well, I guess you fold, then."

You sob, "But I have a winning hand!"

The response comes short but sweet: "tell it to someone who cares, kid."

From Miriam Webster: Arrest: "to take or keep in custody by authority of law"

If you are not free to leave, then you have been taken and are being kept in the custody of the officer who is not allowing you to leave. You are arrested.

From Black's Law Dictionary: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime."

If you are not free to leave, then you have been detained, and are therefore under arrest.

And from Terry v. Ohio (1968 US Supreme Court case) "An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows"

If the cop tells you you can't leave, then he is interfering with your freedom of movement and has therefore arrested you.

@shadowkahn: Arrest != Detention. There are both actual and legal differences between being detained by the police and being arrested by them.

(If you're wondering, we definitely were conflicted about reporting the crime in the first place. We all hated Wal-Mart, and were not opposed to it losing money and inventory. We called because we didn't want an innocent employee to get blamed when they finally noticed that a flat screen tv was missing.)

Does anyone see that this could all have been avoided if WalMart didn't have self-check? If a cashier had made the mistake, whoops, cashier is disciplined. But, because WM can't afford the cashier, they must deal with all the bad publicity.

I banned Walmart from entering my wallet over a year ago. There is nothing they sell that I can't get for the same price or less somewhere else. Most of their stuff is garbage anyway.

Let's go over it again, kids. If You Are Not Free To Leave, You Are Under Arrest. Even if the nice officer lies and says you aren't, you are.

srry. mnt yr bvs glrng htrd fr vwls.

steveliv

y yr bvs glrng htrd fr vbs?

@sinfuly Delicious: I'm normally the last person to debate semantics, but....

A criminal court will NEVER say a person is "innocent", they will find an accused person "guilty" or "not guilty" of the alleged crime.

Similarly a civil court will find a person "liable" or "not liable" for the matter claimed in the lawsuit; they will never (or at least should never) say a person is guilty in a civil context (both due to the fact they are not considering a criminal matter and that the burden of proof is substantially lower).

@sonneillon:

I think you're underestimating the potential power of a jury trial--folks *love* to give money to regular people when big companies act badly. Juries are unpredictable, but, a thousand? I don't think so.

@fantomesq:

Did you even come close to reading the actual article?

This is just one more reason that I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I will not shop at a business that considers their customers to be criminals until proven otherwise (Their insistent "Where's your reciept??" bull---- every time you walk in or out). I can easily do without Wal-Mart in my life. Suck it, Wal-Mart.

I can't say I would mind if Wal-Mart banned me from all their stores.

It's an entity that's pretty much a stain on humanity anyway.

@Gorphlog: As michael jackson would say:

You're ignorant... That's ignorant

This is generally a pretty nice online community. I wouldn't expect a bigot to be welcome.

That, my friend, is a gigantic difference. One might actually have a chance to fight back against a small shop without going totally broke...

Walked out of a wal-mart with a case of Coke in the cart unpaid for, by accident, some years ago around Christmas. My husband worked for them at the time (we partied hard when he got a much better job and quit without notice after seven years). We laughed and kept it. I don't care. I hope they all burn.

Thank goodness you cleared that all up.

However, once early this year I spent about $11 at a Walmart, and later saw the amount on my bank statement to be $113. I called my bank and they "temporarily refunded" the amount to my account while they filed a claim against Walmart. About 4 months later I saw an "error" charge on my statement which amounted to $113. The bank said they could no longer do anything about it. I called Walmart and they told me what items I had been charged for, 5 of which I didn't buy. (all of my items were related to baking cupcakes, while the others ranged from dog food to nicotine gum...I've never even smoked, and I didn't have a dog) I was told that if I had contacted them sooner, they could have looked back at security footage, but now it was too late. I told them I did what I thought was right by contacting my bank, and so on and so forth. I never got anywhere with them, and my batch of homemade cupcakes wound up costing me $113.

Also, I've heard nothing but horror stories from former Walmart employees. I was laid-off in August and am still trying to find a job, but I refuse to work for Walmart and be treated like a replaceable piece of dirt.

That said, I despise WalMart and I do not shop there. I would much rather pay a little more and support my local businesses so that WalMart doesn't one day become the only choice.

Stories like this one reaffirm my reasons for boycotting them.

As far as your analog to the prosecutor, it's not really the same. A prosecutor who files charges may be held accountable if he does so on a knowingly insufficient basis, but he can certainly arrest the person and investigate so long as there is probable cause.

The burden necessary to justify a detention and the burden necessary to move forward with, or to succeed, in a prosecution are different. In this case, Wal-Mart only needed to show that they had reasonable suspicion that the person shoplifted. Once they cross that hurdle, they can briefly detain the individual to investigate further. Being ultimately wrong doesn't extinguish the initial right to detain.

It sounds to me like individuals working at your local WalMart are homophobes.

Fortunately, in more friendly countries, the vast majority of employees in any function, especially retail, are not. Perhaps you need to spend some time in the Great White North?

Thank You!

@Esquire99: Define "reasonable suspicion". Does that mean shopping while poor? Wearing clothes that have pockets or clothes looser than a spandex bodysuit?

I'm not being snarkty with you, but it's a ridiculous notion that "reasonable suspicion" is enough. The burden of proof must always lie with the accuser - prosecutors who knowingly file with insufficient evidence can be held accountable, so why not anyone else?

Just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, if people and businesses can make accusations with impunity, they're going to start making false accusations because they know there are no repercussions.

@Esquire99:
And, fortunately, neither is your belief relevent to the average civil jury!

Further, the illegal search and seizure provisions of the 4th Amendment only apply to the government (law enforcement), not to Walmart (private company). There are probably similarly applicable torts, but search and seizure isn't one of them.

Moreover, Defamation isn't an easy case to make. The burdens are fairly high, in part because of the 1st Amendment. If Walmart had reason to believe they shoplifted, accusing them of it and ultimately being wrong probably doesn't amount to defamation. The plaintiff shoppers would probably have to prove that at the time of the accusation Walmart KNEW that it was false. The fact it was ultimately proven false may not matter.

I was under the impression that detaining someone without evidence of shoplifting could be considered unlawful confinement, and illegal search and seizure if a person is searched without their agreementand without a cop present, especially when no evidence is found.

The couple should fight back with a countersuit for defamation of character, along with the other charges listed above. They didn't steal, so make Walmart pay through the nose for accusing them of it.

There are many, many other places to buy goods. I haven't walked into a Wal-Mart in years. And don't plan to, either.

It's the company store for America.

From the article: "By the time they were read the statement, Paolucci and Hitchcock said, the twins had told them that the security staff had allegedly threatened them in the security room and had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock's lifestyle."

It's pretty clear that the couple being gay had a role to play in the treatment of this family.

That doesn't have anything to do with this story (unless Walmart does have an anti-gay agenda and everybody involved was originally from the Arkansas HQ, but then we're getting deep into conspiracy theory territory), but it just makes me angry anyway.

We have a new WalMart opening no more than two miles from my house, which makes it the fourth within a 15 mile radius of me. Unfortunately, its opening up on one of the busiest four lane highways in our area that's already peppered with an unending amount of restaurants, strip malls, shopping centers and two actual malls. To make things worse, they're promising to be open by Black Friday, which is going to be a mess. That area is already pure chaos that time of the year, can't wait for the horde this WalMart is going to bring it.

Even worse, it was originally supposed to open a few miles down the road over a year ago but city residents fought it and construction was halted until Meijer purchased the property. WalMart just hopped the city line and threw up shop right across the border, unfortunately no one threw up as much of a stink this time.

What's to stop these guys from going to another Supercenter? Is there some kind of Walmart's Most Wanted bulletin board?

I 'm a bail bondsman. I deal with Walmart shoplifting cases almost daily. A couple of points to remember:

1) Walmart has loosened up on the small time pilferage in their stores. There used to be a pretty strict "zero tolerance" policy on shoplifting that even the local manger and security guy could't bend. Yes ,even for a kindly old grandmother. (Seen it !)

2) Every person arrested for shoplifting there gets one of these notorious civil damages demand letters. This is a way to make the defendant essentially pay for their investigation and recovery. Typically ,the defendant in these cases is transient -Walmart sends a letter to their last known address and it just...dies. The recovery usually comes in cases where teenagers are caught swiping stuff and the parents pay.

3) Walmart security personnel are trained in tactics designed to get convictions. Period. They are unscrupulous , arrogant and ambitious. Kind of like Barney Fife raised by wolves. Their favorite tactic is to tell a suspect that they have tape of them stealing stuff. If the victim will just admit their crime , they will let them go. Works every time with young adults and most times with older folks. That's when they get a little wet kiss on their performance review and the defendant gets a shake and howdy with me.

4) There are two sides to every story and this is no exception. Walmart is tough on shopllifters. But they still have plenty of them. (If you are one of my clients reading this , my son's college thanks you). I'm not telling anyone to break the law ,but if you must steal ,you might want to check out KMart. After 11 years of doing this , I 've had exactly TWO cases of shoplifting that KMart prosecuted.

Maybe the elulsive 'Anonymous' that frightened the Scientologist should take on WalMart. How about it, people?

Since these guys are lawyers, why can't they be their own lawyers and save 'millions of dollars'. Am I missing something?

If the law firm mailed a letter demanding $158.40 with no legal basis to do so, that reeks of extortion and THAT'S illegal.

[www.uspsoig.gov]

Let's put those Postal Inspectors to work tearing that law firm a new one, they've got better things to do than sit around all day reading MY dirty magazines...

thanks to wal-mart's everyday low prices, a teen can actually swipe 3 CD's, or a DVD and CD combination and still not see any legal recourse

=/

On a serious note- had this happened to me (a 35-yr old male in Georgia who, in theory, dates other men...in reality, I have more of a celibate monk thing going on, but I digress...), I would consider it a physical threat and use every Xena/Chuck Norris/Halliwell/Buffy move I know to defend myself!!! In the words of comic actress Sherri Shepard, "Play with me and I WILL MESS YOU UP"!

One other thought- I admire any couple who chooses to adopt children and provide a safe and loving home for them! I just hope the BIC lighter doesn't mean that their dad(s) are smokers...it's grotesque...

@mantari:

Yo, dude. I can assume from your post that you are a gay person. Fair enough.

Can I look at you and determine your orientation?

Do you wear a sign, a special shirt or a hat with a logo that indicates you are gay?

Do you introduce yourself as a gay person to every man, woman or child?

Well? How would a person KNOW that you are gay? Seriously?

PS:

I can assume. I can guess. But I can not ever know for sure. Conversely, I am straight. You can guess, you can assume, but you can never know for sure.

if i were them, i would ignore the letter. if you get a subpoena, DON'T ignore that, but a demand letter from a lawyer? get bent. see your ass in court.

would love to hear the "other side" of the story.

@mantari: Oh man, I knew a guy who trained to be in asset protection at Wal-Mart. He was a bully who from day 1 was just itching for someone to shoplift so he could play hero and get to basically tackle them at the door.

About 5 months later he got fired after he went after someone who had been suspected of shoplifting in the past, but had not shoplifted anything when he went after her.

FYI: Here is a part of a long article, link below:
===============================

Wal-Mart has long been known for a very strict policy: call the police on anyone who takes anything. But that policy is over. Wal-Mart, which I am guessing may be the largest shoplifting target in history, is no longer prosecuting first-time shoplifter unless they are between 18 and 65 and have stolen more than $25 worth of stuff. According to today's N.Y. Times, this change puts Wal-Mart in line with most other chains' policies.

This is found at:
[freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com]

========================================

and is also carried on: www.targetfiling.blogspot.com
FYI: Target has a $20 min. to prosecute, however Tarbutt AP goons have been on some sites saying that this is regarded as just a generalization so don't count on it.

FYI: Here is an article about Wally World and how they are sued and how they react.
=================================

Lawsuits a volume business at Wal-Mart

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

By Matthew Minard, The Shreveport Times, for USA TODAY
Shoppers head into a Wal-Mart "Supercenter" in Bossier City, La. The retailer has been sued over matters ranging from the security of parking lots to the actions of crowds of bargain-hunters.

Wal-Mart is a legend in American business, a 39-year-old retail dynamo that trails only ExxonMobil in annual revenue. But in America's courtrooms, Wal-Mart has another distinction: As the company's sales have soared, analysts say, it appears to have become the nation's most popular private-sector target for lawsuits.

By its own count, Wal-Mart was sued 4,851 times last year - or nearly once every two hours, every day of the year. Juries decide a case in which Wal-Mart is a defendant about six times every business day, usually in favor of the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant. Wal-Mart lawyers list about 9,400 open cases.

No one keeps a comprehensive list of all the nation's litigation, but legal analysts believe that Wal-Mart is sued more often than any American entity except the U.S. government, which the Justice Department estimates was sued more than 7,500 times last year. Dozens of lawyers across the United States now specialize in suing Wal-Mart; many share documents and other information via the Internet.

But the huge volume of Wal-Mart lawsuits is only half the story.

Wal-Mart, which promotes itself as a down-home friendly business, is helping change the nature of corporate litigation by aggressively fighting many cases even when it would be cheaper for the company to settle, analysts say.

The policy runs counter to the strategy of "settle quickly and cut your losses" that companies have used for generations. But it is paying dividends for Wal-Mart, which in the past five years has seen the pace of its lawsuits stabilize as potential plaintiffs and their lawyers opt not to sue after weighing the costs of fighting the retailer.
===============================

www.targetfiling.blogspot.com

A few years back, here in Beckley, WV, they accused an older black woman of shoplifting. The case had racial undertones and the woman was degraded. That little false accusation cost Wal-Mart in excess of 100,000.00. I doubt you will find any public record of it as the settlement had a gag clause. FUCK WAL-MART and I hope sam walton is rotting in hell!

I do not agree with what Walmart did, I might even say they were being pants on head retarded. I just do not think it is worthwhile to suen

I cannot imagine why Wal-Mart would go this far. They know it wasn't shoplifting since their own security video proved that it was not. There is a police report clearly stating that no shoplifting occurred. What possible advantage could there be for Wal-Mart to ban a family of customers who have been legitimately purchasing goods from a Wal-Mart store? They've now lost those customers AND they will probably lose more customers just because of the bad publicity. I can understand being embarrassed about their mistake but trying to threaten the innocent couple with a civil suit just ensures that Wal-Mart's egregious and continuing mistake stays in the public eye that much longer.

This makes no sense. It's as if Wal-Mart executives were intentionally seeking a way to reduce their customer base.

Heaven help the Walmart employee or rent a cop that "attempts" to arrest me. Funny they never pick on 6"4" 200 lbs when I walk out.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: He was jailed because he gave the police a false name. Not really Walmart's choice there. He tried to steal a 64GB iPod Touch ($379 at Walmart). He was fined $250. He's not banned from entering a Walmart store.

Think about it.

1. ""It is unknown at this time why the self checkout scanner did not pick up the items scanned by Paolucci," the report said." Apparently at least one item was removed from the store without being paid for. Albeit walmarts fault.

2. "The report also stated that when officers arrived at the store, they found Paolucci and Hitchcock "causing a scene, being very loud and disrupting customers while yelling and swearing at Wal-Mart security."" Thus the removal to the squad cars.

3. "The (police) report added the boys played a video game while in the security room and at one point apologized "for being disrespectful." According to the report, one of the boys advised that he and his brother were "just scared."" So perhaps no interrogation with a lamp. But still why not put the kids in police custody, or the custody of the non cuffed adult, while waiting?

@mantari: You still havent cited anything that shows the staff is either homophobic or acting in a discrimitory manner. Do they insult you for being gay? Do you dress in a manner that draws attention to yourself? Do you act in a manner that does? Both, by design draw attention from people, including security guards.

@AngryK9: You nephew was jailed and had a larger fine than this group becasue he had a record. Sounds like you are proving they are not discriminating...

Hello,

I am a big fan of your cargo (denim) jeans. (Interestingly, I can't find them on your website.) After Old Navy stopped making them, yours were about the only ones I could find.

Even more unfortunately, even though I can often find Wrangler cargo shorts (for summer wear) in decent stores such as Target. I can find the cargo full-length (36W, 34L) jeans only at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is evil. I loathe spending my money to support such an organization. Yet when I need this particular product (I have several pairs), I have no choice but to go there.

Here is an example of just how bad Wal-Maret is: [consumerist.com]

I beg, you, I implore you, please expand your retail network for this product. Heck, I'd even pay more (not much more, to be sure) to not have to spend my money at Wal-Mart.

(And while I'm at it, could I suggest two minor improvements to the design? I'd love to see the denim just a little bit heavier. And I'd love to see velcro flaps over the back pockets (like on the shorts).

I am just such a huge fan of cargo style, but I much prefer denim over khakis, so I am truly appreciative that you still make cargoes in denim. Just please, please, sell them in more places.

Thank you.

If there was homophobia involved in the situation I would blame it on the mindset and behavior of the store manager as the source more so that Walmart.

Also, you had me a "posse".

Well, I'm done with Walmart for sure now. They are out of control.

The problem has several components. First, you have young men who are probably more inclined to be homophobic (by age, by profession). Second, they're bored. (Those two alone there is quite enough of a mix.) But third, in some circumstances, they are left to work with no direct supervision of their activities.

They're free to go around the store... their store... to catch shoplifters as they see fit. And somes bored homophobic asset protection employee with no supervision love to chase around and harass gay customers... with complete impunity.

I've had this to some small degree at a number of Wal-Mart stores. But there is was one in my area that is absolutely notorious for this. It was closed down and replaced by another nearby and larger location. The AP employees went with it. And so did the problem.

Given their freedom, lack of oversight, and lack of accountability, they're free to play follow the queer for as long as they want. And it'd be a big bonus if one of them would just steal something for once.

Wal-Mart corporate just isn't clamping down on these guys. And I can imagine the laughs those security guys would have during any diversity training.

@varro: Exactly, the collection or WMT agency files suit, the couple is a no show, and they get a default judgment. Either way, WMT is a huge d-bag of a company.

@fantomesq: If they were detained by Wal-Mart (not an agent of the state), but only briefly handcuffed by the police, I'm not sure it's an arrest, but its a close one.

Now, if MalWart prosecutes their claim (how many Bics could you buy for $158?), I would love to see a theory researched for a counterclaim, something that would really give MalWart something to lose.

But Wal-Mart is based in the Natural State, so that means nothing that God doesn't approve of is allowed. This is why I have to make sure to get all my grocery shopping done before my period, since I'm not allowed out in public then.

This complex simply has too much damn power, and I'm glad to see Consumerist and others calling them out on it.

Send any other editorial feedback directly to me, or to Ben or Meg (our email addresses are in the sidebar). I won't have this derailing into another false argument about what we can and can't post about on Consumerist.

@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: I see what you did there...Touche to you, sir.

Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist. Bradley v. State

This has nothing to do with the DA or charges.

I'm not the litigious type but if that happened to my family I would keep going until justice was complete. And, since my WalMart is in an area when I am a member of the community you better believe I'd not only make sure my record was clear but, in the final agreement settling the matter, if there was even a hint that I was still banned there would be an immediate lawsuit for libel.

In this day of excellent online stores with great prices and service, I don't know why anyone would NEED to shop at Walmart's any more.

Once again, we must rely on word of mouth to remind our friends and neighbors to shop elsewhere. If enough of us continue to badmouth and boycott these behemoths, perhaps they too will eventually wither and die like GM.

WalMart is the worst of retail.

How the hell can they ban someone for life across ALL wal-marts?

Wal-mart tried to get my aunt for shoplifting when she walked past the registers with a book in her cart, realized her mistake and went to give it back. Of course she hired lawyers and won her case.

As I'd suggest the couple in this story do.

I hope they file a discrimination suit, because this is what it shounds like to me. My nephew was recently caught shoplifting at the local WM. He spent 5 days in jail, a $250 fine, and that was the end of it. And he has more on his criminal record than that....so yeah, discrimination.

Also, footage proved their innocence? Wrongful persecution on top of discrimination.

Wal-Mart does not lose in court. They are notorious for pulling all kinds of sleazy and dirt tactics in court, including flat out lying.

At the Wallyworld I work at it is the prime location FOR theft. One security guy who doesn't do his job and just kisses managemnt a** and the people at the door could careless if you steal or not, as long as you don't make their job harder.

These aren't pikers - they know Sam Zell, the 68th richest man in America. A few well-placed letters from someone would be able to solve this very quickly.

@Trai_Dep: But then Bally's will come pick them up and get them a gym membership.

They were detained in squad cars (one in handcuffs) while the police reviewed the video footage with Walmart personnel. The police then said that upon reviewing the footage, they did not believe any shoplifting had taken place and that they were free to go. At that point, Walmart employees told them they were banned.

@fantomesq: With videotape evidence that they did not shoplift and a statement from the police that no shoplifting occurred, how would they press charges?

Basically all the members of the posse would need to be financially unambitious and totally philanthropic, but I bet you could probably find a couple hundred in the country who would do it. It's a pipe dream but its my pipe dream (one of them anyway).

Of course they pulled the incredibly bone-headed move of announcing that policy in a press conference, which basically gave every teen in the world carte blanche to come in and steal a CD.

They really owed this family an apology instead Walmart keeps heaping insult on top of injury. Where do I donate to the legal fund. I really want to see these guys sue. Enough people aggressively sue Walmart for this kind of thing and they might actually behave.

I would say just don't shop there. As others have pointed out sometimes Walmart is literally the only option people can get to.

How hard is it to act like a fucking human?

I'd like to see that letter hold up in court.

@skizsrodt: Walmart, i mean, not the two accused.

Wow, found innocent and still they try and get restitution? That's absurd. I hope that there is a law they are violating here that could get them in some sort of trouble.