var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

junip

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

This company makes me sad... very, very sad.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

corbyz

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@junip: Honestly, to me, the worst part of it all which most people seem to be overlooking is what was done with the children. Making anti-gay comments and remarks about their parents, while their parents were being forcefully kept away, is shameful. Seriously, I can't even say how inappropriate that is. That's what makes me angry more than anything. That's not just disrespecting the parents, it's disrespecting the children, and the parents' whole parenting role... their entire relationship and their entire family.

$\"user-pic\"$

corbyz

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@junip: I think WalMart owes the couple WAY more than $158.40 in compensation for the things that were said in front of the children. I also wonder if one store even has the authority to speak for ALL WalMarts, banning them from any WalMart for life. Maybe the manager of another area WalMart could do the right thing and send a letter to the couple, not only saying that they are welcome at their location, but offer a gift certificate or something for the kids. That would be the minimum requirement to even get me to consider going to another WalMart (any location) if I were them.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

your new nemesis

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ChemicallyInert

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Two words: CIVIL LAWSUIT.

This has nothing to do with the DA or charges.

$\"user-pic\"$

your new nemesis

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

sinfuly Delicious

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: unfortunately no. think oj. he was found criminally innocent. but civilly was found guilty.

$\"user-pic\"$

mizike

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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).

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfuly Delicious: Not \"guilty.\" Civil suits don't determine guilt or innocence. He was just found liable for some amount of damages.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: Found innocent? By what competent authority? Because their kids say so? If they were arrested it was because Walmart is pressing charges. It sounds like they've got a pretty solid defense - lacking intent to steal, if that's what the security video actually shows and at that point they MIGHT have viable civil charges against Walmart... in the meantime, Walmart's pressing charges. The DA may well not pursue the case.

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Did you even come close to reading the actual article?

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: RTFA

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ospreyguy: Love it! I'll be stealing that term now, tyvm. You ain't gonna charge me royalties on that, are ya?

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: DAs don't do civil suits if I remember correctly.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: They weren't arrested, and their kids have nothing to do with any claims of \"innocence.\"

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

shadowkahn

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

mizike

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

shadowkahn

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:

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

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Walmart has no standing to press charges - if the police determined that no crime took place, they won't send the police report to the DA to file a criminal complaint.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

How hard is it to act like a fucking human?

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

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

redskull

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: Maybe that's the trouble-- Walmart IS acting like a human. This hasn't been a very proud week for our species.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: Week?

$\"user-pic\"$

PSUSkier

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisistobehelpful: I'm guessing he's referring to the shootings.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PSUSkier: On the plus side, it didn't end THAT badly. On the minus side, this is still pretty bad. Only reinforces my decision to not give them any of my money again, that's for sure.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought I had read things in the past that said they were not even going to prosecute theft under $25.00.

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

shadowkahn

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: That policy only applies to heterosexual individuals. I strongly suspect that the goons in this particular Wal-mart have unfavorable opinions regarding homosexuality. . Especially if the gay guys have the audacity to have children.

$\"user-pic\"$

redskull

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Yeah, what a difference a couple of years makes. You're right, it wasn't that long ago they said they were ignoring thefts under $25.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

discounteggroll

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

=/

","

$\"user-pic\"$

El_Fez

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Astounding the depths that this company will sink to.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I could see MAYBE handcuffing them until sorting it all out. But once the police decided no shoplifting occured, that should be the end of it. Does WalMart honestly think they have the right to collect money from the couple?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman: No, it shouldn't be the end of it. Once the police decided no shoplifting occurred, a final phase of profuse, kind, sincere apologies from Walmart to the couple, together with a free gift card, should have taken place. THEN the end of it!

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman: I think it's a collection agency masquerading as a regular law firm that sends out letters to *anyone* accused of shoplifting - most states have laws allowing civil actions for money damages for theft (conversion).

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@varro: It's possible, but Walmart would have to clue them in on it for anyone to know what to collect...

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: i don't even think they go that far - i think these \"law firms\" are much like zombie debt collectors. they throw a bunch of crap at the wall hoping something will stick.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if small claims would work for them. At the very least, they could get a judgement for the cost of the groceries that went bad while they were being detained, and possibly also get some sort of order invalidating any claim on Wal-Mart's part stemming from this incident.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: Walmart has the right to not serve anyone, so invalidating the choice of a private business not to serve a certain customer is gonna be a tough sell

$\"user-pic\"$

ChemicallyInert

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: I know, isn't that the only appropriate venue? Or can insane legal fees be included to bump it higher? Still, I don't see a jury ruling against them if it got that far. Is there a lawyer in the house?

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ChemicallyInert: The problem is that as the article says Walmart pays hardball with lawsuits. If it moved to limited or unlimited court you would definitely need a lawyer and would have to demand a jury trial etc, and the legal fees would be absurd. So you would want the case to stay in small claims because it's more more manageable without an attorney

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz: They're both lawyers, although I'm not sure what type

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Belabras ate my dingo!

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I see a lawsuit in the future. One Walmart will lose.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

IceMax

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Belabras ate my dingo!:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@IceMax: Do you have any proof? Any docket numbers you could point me to? Or are you just pulling that out of thin air?

$\"user-pic\"$

quail

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@IceMax: I say, get it in 'The People's Court'. Judge Judy would be fun to watch on a case like this.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@IceMax: That is why small claims might be the best venue. In most states small claims does not allow for lots of delays and legal wrangling that is in a regular civil case. At least in SD a small claims ruling can't be appealed either. I can't imagine a small claims judge faced with the facts ruling in Walmart's favor. I don't know if the couple can sue for damages or the humiliation in small claims though.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: i don't think they can. small claims has a very narrow scope in most states - you can sue for realized loss & that's about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Belabras ate my dingo!: Someone has to bring it. Which means someone has to fund it. Unless they have a four star claim for false arrest (doesn't sound it from the article), I don't even see any damage here. It's probably considered a benefit to be banned from MalWart.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Belabras ate my dingo!: Both victims here are lawyers. I'm sure they are aware of the numerous violations that have occurred, but are also aware of how WalMart would game the legal system in a war of attrition that they could not hope to gain any meaningful remedy from by forcing the cost of litigation higher than any reasonable remedy.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: @ludwigk:

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

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@uber_mensch:
Even absent the actual legal fees, it can be incredibly expensive to pursue a case that isn't very simple. If they have to depose anyone it can get expensive very quickly. On top of that, if they want to claim the children were harmed, they may need expert witnesses, which can be incredibly expensive as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@uber_mensch: Different kind of lawyer? They may not specialize in this particular branch of law and thus be at a disadvantage.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

redskull

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Too bad towns can't ban Walmart for life.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: Yes, because mom-and-pop store owners are ALWAYS full-on ethically, have clear, defined prices, written down hiring/firing procedures, and an efficient distribution system.

$\"user-pic\"$

mon0zuki

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RedwoodFlyer: Wait a second though. Mom-and-pop shops may have their jackass moments, but they don't have a massive, unchallangable corporation backing them.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: zoning is the key. you can limit the size of retail space, or require more land/parking than any particular zone can adequately provide. the downside is that you'll be forcing out ALL large-box retailers, not just wal-mart. where most towns fail is that they try to zone out wal-mart but keep other stores in play. you can't do that - wal-mart's lawyers know this & use it as a wedge to sue their way into town.

$\"user-pic\"$

zandar

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: I'm doing my part- now to get everyone else in my midwestern town onboard. Not too likely I'm afraid.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: They can. All they have to do is stop shopping there.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Using the police report I would sue the crap out of them.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Duckula22: You would go bankrupt before you saw one red cent from The Devil.

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.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

rocketbear79: threadkiller

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This kind of BS is what makes me want to start a posse of nomadic lawyers. Local consumer activists would give them room and board in their homes and collect donations for filing fees and in return they would spend all their time suing the shit out of these asshole companies that can buy the courts.

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).

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: That's a brilliant idea. Anyone suing WalMart is welcome to crash on my couch. :-)

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: If you think you could find \"a couple hundred in the country\" who'd be willing to do this, you obviously don't know the first thing about the legal industry. If you got something like this together, you would be buried in resumes. It would takes months just to sort through them. The legal \"education\" system pumps out thousands more new lawyers than there are jobs every year, and a large percentage of them would take any job that would provide them with food and shelter.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: If I was a lawyer, I would help. But alas, I'm just a graphics dood.

Also, you had me a \"posse\".

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GadgetsAlwaysFit: They have made it clear that they will create policies or ban products at the request of fundamentalist Christian groups that bitch about whatever. Walmart isn't a \"Christian Company\" like Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-a. But they certainly cowtow to that segment.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@uber_mensch:
Sorry... *elusive*

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: With the right fundraising something like this could happen including reasonable salaries and travel expenses for said law team. I would think there would be some lawyers willing to take this up out of frustration with the system as it is or since it would be more meaningful that pushing papers as the low person on the food chain at some law office.

$\"user-pic\"$

Karita

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: Pay for me to take the bar in 49 other states and I'll totally join in. :)

$\"user-pic\"$

RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: Had I a law degree, I'd sign up.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: I might be up for that, as a matter of fact. (I'm an Oregon lawyer.)

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rocketbear79: threadkiller: I would donate.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What kind if hideous monsters would hijack a couple's developmentally disabled, eleven-year-old children then lock them into a room and disparage their parents while threatening the kids?
Oh. Wal-Mart. In that case, I'm surprised they don't have a section in their employee manual describing how to do this in the most cost-effective manner.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

Buckus

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Bally's was closed

$\"user-pic\"$

Ragman

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wickedpixel: Just wait until they start putting them in the Supercenters...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","

$\"user-pic\"$

RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart plays hardball and won't settle out of court? Even better. I'd want that case to see the inside of a courtroom so bad I'd sell everything I had to pay the lawyer bills. Lawsuits are all we really have to protect ourselves from situations like this. By not taking action against them it just encourages them to be even more of an ass to the next person they think is shoplifting.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster: Does everything you have amount to the millions of dollars in legal fees you'd have to pay a big time lawyer's legal fees? And what do you think you'd get out of it? Maybe being allowed back into WalMart?

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster: Best case scenario? They get maybe a a thousand bucks from slander, really there just is not much in terms of damages the couple was only embarrassed and other than not being able to shop at Walmart which is the prerogative of a Walmart employee to say certain people cannot come in there is nothing really there.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart needs to have a tough team fighting their legal battles. They keep getting sued because everyone wants to get a piece of their giant pie.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AgitatedDot: Yeah, those developmentally disabled eleven-year-olds really push poor Wal-Mart far past any reasonable limit, what with their whining about being locked up so they can be threatened and Wal-Mart can make fag jokes about their parents.
The NERVE! The kids should just suck up their nightmares, medications and bedwetting. Like men!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AgitatedDot: They are the single most sued entity.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Even if Wal-Mart doesn't settle things easily, it can easily be clobberin' time for a plaintiff's lawyer, and the couple certainly might know someone willing to take on Wal-Mart in this matter.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

kabuk1

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wal-Mart is only giving them grief because they're gay, because they're this big 'christian' organization. How sad. I say sue the living shit out of them.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: Well I mean Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas, where homosexuals aren't even allowed to adopt kids in the first place.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: I'd say that the story only mentions their sexual preference to garner outrage from simple minded folks like yourself. If you really believe that Wal-Mart collectively has some anti-gay agenda, and the individual store managers acted this way as a result, then you're quite the sad individual.

Being so quick to point out that every bad thing that happens to gay couples is due solely to their sexual preference (even though nothing supports that here), is just as stupid as legitimate discrimination.

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: No I'd say you don't know how proudly and fiercely WalMart has marketed itself as a \"Christian\" company. I completely believe many many of their locations have this behavior belief system / orientation.

$\"user-pic\"$

KiLE

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Why do people comment before reading the article?

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@KiLE: Oh, I read the article. I couldn't care less what a couple of kids from Romania allegedly said. Unless there's proof of that, then it didn't happen. It's hardly unheard of for people to bring their \"protected class status\" into legal disputes just to garner outrage and attention. It's really a pathetic course of action.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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...

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Yeah just as unbelievable as a bunch of rednecks whacking foreign kids with gay daddies around or verbally threatening them in a room where there are no cameras because they know people like you will say if there's no video it never happened.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:
@RedwoodFlyer:
I guess not everyone sees eye to eye...

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Wal-Mart does not have an anti-gay agenda. But I can tell you that there are asset protection employees who work for Wal-Mart who most certainly do, and they're more than happy to focus all their attention on gay customers.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson much?

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RedwoodFlyer: I'm black myself, and I can't stand how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson unjustifiably bring race into every conceivable scenario. While it will never happen, legal battles and the media need to stick to the facts, and leave race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. out unless it is absolutely indisputable that it was a factor in the case.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rob

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Thanks for telling us your black, this clearly makes your opinion more important then others and I now care more. How dare the media report that the kids said something, theres no proof of this other then what the kids say so it didn't happen. Brilliant. I guess we know where you stand on the side of \"if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound\" debate.

Thank You!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rb: Wlcm t crmnl lw. f t cn't b prvn, t lglly ddn't hppn. r y srsly rtrdd?

$\"user-pic\"$

Rob

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: You're right, thats why are legal system doesn't ever rely on witnesses or anything of the like because they could just be saying made up shit.

Thank goodness you cleared that all up.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

GadgetsAlwaysFit

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: I have never seen Wal Mart specifically identify themselves as a Christian organization. I know they limit what they sell based on some moral code but moral codes are not restricted to Christianity.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GadgetsAlwaysFit:
It's almost like the old days when a crime was reported in the news and the suspects were black they would say so.
Here in the big city when I hear news of crime I just automatically assume it was a black person as a result of that.

$\"user-pic\"$

K-Bo

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: I don't know, I've heard of walmart doing similar things to gays, straights, young, old, and every race. Walmarts heavy handiness seems universal.

$\"user-pic\"$

RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: Oh, man, if they could prove that it was motivated by homophobic bias they'd be able to rip Walmart's heart out through it's mouth, legally speaking.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

shadomoon

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@shadomoon: I knew a guy who worked at walmart and the people that the security guys SHOULD be paying attention to are the employees, not the customers. I've heard stories of employees wheeling big-screen TVs right out the back door into their cars.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

lmarconi

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Question for any lawyers out there: Is there any reason the police couldn't have arrested the Walmart manager or employees for child kidnapping or child endangerment? As a private entity, it seems unlikely that Walmart was within their rights to detain, frighten or threaten children. They're not law enforcement, they're private citizens involved in a dispute.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: From the article, the police are maintaining the the children were kept in what they considered a safe environment, precluding any criminal charges. They probably assumed some liability in keeping the children, but it sounds like their handling of the kids was considered proper in light of their detention of the parents.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: Hunh, didn't think of that...

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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...

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9: Sexual orientation is not a legally protected class. I think it should be but as of this moment in most states you can kick people out of a place for being gay. Now on the flip side, the parent corporation does not like to see any money get kicked out. They want that money to return. So jack hole clerks get fired for that sort of thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

JiminyChristmas

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sonneillon: It's generally true that sexual orientation is not a protected class, but it's a little more complicated than that. There are approximately 12 states plus many more small jurisdictions (e.g.: municipalities) where sexual orientation has the same protections as race, sex, religion, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gorphlog

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@snnlln:
nd bng gy SHLDNT b prtctd clss. f y chs t lv prvrtd lfstyl y tk n th cnsqncs. ts n dffrnt thn plc f bsnss syng y cnt cm n f y wr bl jns. Ppl nd lgl prtctn fr thngs thy cnnt hlp sch s rc, gndr, r g

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: As michael jackson would say:

You're ignorant... That's ignorant

$\"user-pic\"$

Zorantor

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: I have to say that I'm a little disappointed to see that you haven't been banned/DV'ed for that comment yet.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

sqlrob

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog:
Religion shouldn't be a protected class. After all, you choose your religion.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: Logic fail. Religion is a choice, and is protected.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: You know what is actually a choice Gorphlog? Religion. If religious people choose to believe their bullshit they should face the consequences. Do you know what isn't a choice? Sexual orientation. So if anything, discrimination against religion should be allowed, and discrimination against sexual orientation should not.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: People don't choose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight?

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: Perverted lifestyle? Yikes, dude, way to judge people you don't even know for things that don't effect you in any way. I know plenty of straight couples that are way more \"perverted\" than the gay people I know, and just because you like to kiss on members of the same gender doesn't automatically make you a pervert. You can't help who you're attracted to, because if that were the case why would anyone consciously decide to become a part of one of the most hated groups in the country?

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sonneillon: Didn't Obama just sign an addition to the Hate Crimes law that DID protect sexual orientation? Or was that just a protection for violent crimes and not something like this?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wal-Mart is not a gay-friendly shopping experience. The check-out cashier? No. The employee working the department? No. It is the security people chasing them all over the store and harassing them. Wal-Mart appears to play cowboy with their security team and allows them to run far more loose than other establishments. Being on the receiving end of the special gay treatment, I can say, it really is sicking to shop at some of their stores.

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

shepd

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: It could very well be my part of the country. If I complain about the asset protection team at that Wal-Mart (which I have), guess who Wal-Mart directs the the complaint to in order to handle? Yup. That very asset protection team. Nice.

$\"user-pic\"$

takotchi

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mantari: Hmm, worst thing I've had is some lady at Walmart wouldn't sell a box of rubbers to the guy I was with because she thought we were going to use them for \"relations\". I suppose it's better than being accused of stealing them.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takotchi: And what was her excuse?

$\"user-pic\"$

takotchi

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Span_Wolf: That it was against the bible to have gay sex.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takotchi: Unless he had a wedding ring, what he was doing was against the bible anyway. Some would argue even using condoms is against the bible. Yay, Walmart employee hypocrisy!

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Who cares about the Bible?

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: Apparently, that checker.

$\"user-pic\"$

takotchi

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Yeah, now that you mention it, I wonder who she -would- have been willing to sell them too. Probably not straight \"fornicators\" either.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: No matter what you are wearing, assuming you aren't nude or revealing privates, if you are not verbally or physically attacking, harassing or disturbing other customers or employees, than the damn staff should leave you alone and shut up, period.

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Yes, someone can look at me and my partner shopping (two guys, one cart) and quickly put 2 and 2 together from there. It isn't rocket science.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: Does it matter? If a person is perceived as gay, regardless of if they are or not, and are subsequently harassed for it, then there's a problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mantari: Tell me more, I enjoy being outraged.

$\"user-pic\"$

mantari

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Span_Wolf: Nice troll, dude. Sure, I'll add more.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mantari: Given your description, I am at a loss to understand why you patronize The Devil.

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: That's very close to blaming the victim.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mntr: wsn't trllng, 'm gy t dmbss.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Dyscord

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Dyscord: I was just asking myself the same question. They must give their store managers a lot of friggin' power if they can ban you from every single Wal-Mart for life.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Freedomforall

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

WalMart is the worst of retail.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SmittyWerbenmanjensen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Considering that Walmart is working *hard* to get more stores within Chicago city limits (there is currently only one and it's not a supercenter), this doesn't help their case. I do hope the anti-WM groups and the unions (the main reason Chicago aldermen aren't completely pro-WM) pick this up and use it as fodder.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jpdanzig

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What's even more amazing -- WalMart did this to two attorneys (read the Tribune article) who DON'T want to sue.

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.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

parkj238

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Whats sad is that I can totally picture the security officers hassling the kids about their dads. They probably detain kids all the time for shoplifting and have no problems getting cut throat on them.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

steveliv

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

chrs, snc whn dd cnsmrst bcm n pnn blg? y mght jst stt th fcts, rthr thn njct yr bvs glrng htrd fr Wl-Mrt.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: I don't want this to derail either, but it's not like any of the other editors have professed their love of Wally World either...

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: We've always shared opinions as well as news items. If this is the first time you've noticed it, it may say something more about what ticks you off than about our editorial content.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Too bad WalMart can't figure out how to ban frogs from their salad. They could always ban anyone who finds one, though.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know what Wal-mart was thinking. There may have been some homophobic stuff going on, but maybe they would be assholes no matter what.

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.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

weave

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I got falsely accused of shoplifting at Pathmark (grocery store chain) when I was 12 -- 38 years ago. I didn't do so and the manager knew I didn't because I said if he went to the store next door the cashier there would verify I purchased the candy there. Instead I was banned for life from Pathmark. I've honored that ban for 38 years now. A typical family spends a lot of money on food each year, so they've basically lost out a lot of revenue due to their idiocy over a 10 cent box of Good-n-Plenty.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

CFinWV

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@weave: Good point.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I just wrote to Wrangler:

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@twritersf: There's a few things I've only been able to find at Wal-mart. Back to online ordering for most of it though I don't know where I'm going to get horseradish root come the end of March.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ElizabethD

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Helloooooo, ACLU.... Where are you?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

arcticJKL

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Hatred of walmart aside I would like to point out a few things from the article.

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?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MarketMaven

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am going to boycott Walmart right now because of the outrageous behavior on their part that I just found out about since reading this article..... oh wait, I ALREADY stopped shopping there because they are a**holes.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Good thing Wal-Mart doesn't require you to waive your right to a jury trial and submit to binding arbitration when you enter the store.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, this is tough. Who should I root against?
Lawyers...? Wal-Mart...?
Wal-Mart...? Lawyers...?
Darn.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

At least they're still alive. Could have turned out worse, as we've seen in one of their other stores.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

boomshakla

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is actually the Wal-Mart closest to home. Hate it, terrible place. Totally deplorable, even with Wal-Mart standards. And it is not a \"Chicago Wal-Mart\", it's actually in Niles, Michigan, which is a good 100 miles away from chi-town.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@boomshakla: Thanks. I updated the post shortly after publishing it, but the correction may not have shown up for all readers.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

cranke

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart is practically begging for anonymous retribution that will no doubt far exceed $158 in damage.

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cranke:
that's true isn't it? ever since i've been coming to consumerist (3 years or so? wow, time flies huh?), I have not once been stopped for a receipt check. i believe that it's mostly because i'm 6'4\" and 230 lbs and generally look pretty mean, even if I don't mean to look like that (my ex used to constantly deride me for a look on my face that I didn't believe I had until she annoyed me about enough to actually feel like I had it...).

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DovS

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

WalMart is the poster child for selfish, arrogant, corporate capitalism gone amok.
They don't belong in the 21st century.
It's time for everybody to start showing up at their local WalMart with Pitchforks and Torches.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

wvFrugan

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JiminyChristmas

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan: By most accounts, Sam Walton himself was a decent human being. Things started going downhill after he died.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

watsuk

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","

$\"user-pic\"$

watsuk

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Gay guys really should know better- Walmart is vulgar in every conceivable way! Even K-Mart (or 7-11, Piggly Wiggly, Pic-N-Save, Goodwill) is much classier, in comparison! =)

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...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I hate Wal-Mart so much. I just hate them.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Also? They're Wal-Mart. They need the money, right? Right?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought gay guys didn't smoke...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Brent

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They need a new attorney who's not afraid to sue the bastards.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bruce

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"Paolucci and Hitchcock e-mailed The Tribune a copy of a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart seeking 10 times the retail price of the items the store still claims were shoplifted by Paolucci. The letter states the matter will be dropped if Paolucci submits the $158.40 payment.\"

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...

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Bruce:
They demanded the money in exchange for not bringing a civil suit against the shoppers. The fact the police said they weren't shoplifting doesn't mean that they don't have a potential civil case against the shoppers for conversion, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: True, however, without criminal charges those items are not needed for a criminal proceeding as evidence. And given their lack of reimbursement/replacement for groceries, I doubt those items left with the couple, which means Walmart can sell them again...

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren:
That doesn't lessen the validity of Walmart's offer to settle a potential claim that they believe they may have. The fact that the shoppers may have a separate claim against Walmart also doesn't extinguish the validity of any potential claim Walmart may have. Thus, the letter they sent offer to accept $158.xx in exchange for not bringing suit probably isn't fraudulent. So long as Walmart actually believes they have some basis for a suit there probably isn't anything (legally) wrong with them offering to settle.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Well, what I'm saying is that Walmart still has the items, can still sell them, so they have no claim - what will they bring suit for? Unless they let the shoppers keep the items, but then at that point I would think there was implied permission...but I don't know

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren:
If you steal something from me and I ultimately get that item back I can still sue you in civil court. You don't have to permanently retain the item in order for the act of taking it to constitute a tort. It may not meet the all of the elements of conversion in some states, but it could be trespass to chattels, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Hm, but is it theft if it didn't leave the store and/or there was no intent?

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren:
Intent is the key question. Walmart may believe there was. The fact the police didn't isn't really relevant.

$\"user-pic\"$

wvFrugan

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan:
What a jury ultimately decides doesn't really bear on whether or not they had a basis for sending the demand letter.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm usually the one defending Walmart on here ,but I'm gonna disappoint flamers by agreeing with the mob in this case : This was a wild overreaction by the Oberststurmbannfuhrer of security at this store. Like thats anything new.

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

chilled

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake:I work in a pawn shop and in the past,Lowes and Home Depot seemed to be the favorite target of druggie boosters...not so bad nowdays...

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

thrashanddestroy

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Hrumph...I've worked retail for years and I fully endorse the theft of anything from any WalMart anywhere. Ever. For any reason. Period.

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.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'd sue Walmart's ass.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have always banned Walmart from my family's shopping activities. If they had only followed my example to begin with, none of this would have happened.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

bmwloco

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

All too typical. Wal-Mart can put on a happy face, make vapidly nice commercials, but in the end, they are a fascist and hard nosed take no prisoners company.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jcargill

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have been boycotting walmart and whole foods for years. Every little bit helps.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

jstonemo

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This doesn't make sense to me. I have kids, and I have friends who have kids. If we are out together with our kids so the wives have some free time, does that make us gay? I know you can tell by body language sometimes, but I have never seen a gay couple making out or using other forms of PDA in a Walmart.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

SoCalGNX

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

By looking at the book section in Walmart, it seems they are pretty much fundamentalist Protestant in their outlook. Wonder what the impact would be on their sales if all gays, people of gays and friends of gays quit shopping there for awhile?

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Stores that try to save on human labor by having self-scanning machines shouldn't make customers pay the price when items go unscanned. Since you can't see inside a person's head, and know whether they intentionally or unintentially left an item unscanned, it's up to the store to hire cashiers to check people out.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Alkon: It seems like they were caught via receipt checking v items in the bag, but it's true that this check probably proceeded from seeing the item go unscanned (and thus, seeing the attempt to scan it)

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: This would make this incident the first time in history someone actually looked at what was listed on the receipt (as opposed to looking at the number of items or just glancing at it) and compared it to what was in the bag.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart. The Blackwater of retail.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

P_Smith

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith:
Walmart probably had the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain them until the police showed up. They were apparently observed putting an item in their bag that they did not scan and thus did not pay for. It seems Walmart might have been wrong in the end, but that doesn't defeat the initial reasonable suspicion that justified the detention.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

P_Smith

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith:
The things you mention would not be sufficient to make reasonable suspicion. The security guard, etc. needs to be able to articulate why they think the person shoplifted; essentially, did the guard see the shopper stick something in his pocket? The guard doesn't have to be right, but he needs to believe he saw someone shoplift. All that \"accusation\" gets them is the opportunity to briefly detain the person to investigate further. This is a well-established privilege that retailers have.

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.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm curious why both men were pulled aside - did they think one was an accomplice to the other's act? And given that they were probably proceeding from the video (or an eyewitness), they already knew that the person attempted to scan the item - how else would they have known the item went unpaid for? If the machine registered a weight disturbance, like many self-scanners will, I imagine someone would investigate (they do pay someone to monitor those lanes). Regardless, they knew the person's intent wasn't to steal, and they saw the hundreds of dollars of other items he had - so this, to me, doesn't sound like it was ever a mistake on Walmart's part. It sounds entirely intentional, and was likely a scare tactic to wrangle money out of folks.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just another example of why walfart will always always always deserve the golden poo award....

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Being banned from Wal-Mart for life is a blessing not a curse. I've never shopped there, and I never will.

Stories like this one reaffirm my reasons for boycotting them.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What I want to know is HOW exactly WalMart would ban someone for life? I'm sure you could walk into any WAlMart in the country (except maybe the one you got in trouble at) and no one would notice.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Is this something the ACLU could help with?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

takotchi

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mantari: Two guys, one cart? Oh yes. I see what you did there. =P

","

$\"user-pic\"$

kopns

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Having a low income, myself, I do shop at Walmart simply because they are much cheaper than other local stores like Albertsons and Kroger. (just about anything in Albertsons costs at least 30 cents more and it goes up from there)

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hybriddeathdealer

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's incredible what big business actually gets away with. Things like product manipulation, false 'roll back' displays and false marketing. It's not like it's hard to prove these things that Wal-mart does. Takes about a day or two and a camera. They squeeze the poor by marketing products in rural areas with significant price increases, while in their more affluent store locations receiving somewhat better pricing. So on the one side they cheat and steal what it is they can from their clients. Yet on the other side, they know that no viable lawsuit would ever be held up against them, since big business owns the appellate courts. For more info on that, read The Appeal by John Grisham. ;)
Corruption and hypocrisy rules the day in American business and American politics. Now, Wal-mart figures it can change America, and one way is to a country where you are guilty and must prove your innocence. Wal-mart so called business practices are insulting. Expect more and you'll get more. Corruption deserves Jail, Baby, Jail!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Valajin

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

garthgratis

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

steveliv

y yr bvs glrng htrd fr vbs?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

garthgratis

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

srry. mnt yr bvs glrng htrd fr vwls.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

maltboy1

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

JeffIowa

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

SimonGodOfHairdos

November 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's articles like this that make me SO CONFUSED as to why no one at Wal-Mart would even stay on the phone with my friends and I when we called to report a robbery. We saw two guys come running out of an alarmed back door (my friends' balcony faces the back of a Wal-Mart in Norwalk, CT), throw several large electronics boxes in the back of an SUV, and speed away. We called the store, told them they were robbed, and they responded with, \"No we weren't\" and a hang up. We called the police who apparently also had trouble convincing Wal-Mart that they had been robbed. It was only when the cops found the culprits after they did the same thing several times down I-95 and returned the items to Wal-Mart did they acknowledge the situation. It was ASININE!!! My friend and I went to the store the next day and spoke with a manager, who apologized for the employees' handling of the situation. We told him that the next time we witness Wal-Mart getting robbed, all we're going to do is cheer on the criminals.

(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.)

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 26, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

LESLIE CHARLES GILROY (corrupt cop) (thief)
in company with
LLOYD STEPHEN GANZERLA (thief)
BELINDA JANE GANZERLA (thief) (nee Keuning)
EUGENE CLEVELAND GANZERLA (thief)
TRACEY ANNE GANZERLA (nee Payne from Junee) (thief)
and others, robbed my wife and I
See the whole story here
http://austlawpublish.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

","

$\"user-pic\"$

LALady

December 2, 2009 5:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart is horrible. Some locations worse than others. The Hammond, LA Walmart is terrible about accusing innocent customers of shoplifting. It happened to be 4 months ago. My husband and I basically bought everything at walmart. We had made several customer complains, with managment about employee / managment rudness and lack of interest in customer care/ help.

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.

");