Double Naught Spy
New member
Turn them in for a fire code violation. It is against the law to lock exits during store hours per fire codes.
- Status
What store choses to sell or not sell is store's business. Customer has choice to buy or not buy there. Simple.
When business colludes with others to restrict the rights of third partys, as did S&W, then it becomes of interest to all.
We are at war on two fronts. Against terrorists. And against politicians and other criminals who would deny us our hard won freedoms.
When business colludes with others to restrict the rights of third partys, as did S&W, then it becomes of interest to all.
We are at war on two fronts. Against terrorists. And against politicians and other criminals who would deny us our hard won freedoms.
Typically the folks who do the reciept check in my local Wally are retired and over 65.
If one of them grabbed me, I would hesitate to pull my arm away for fear of pulling a muscleless arm out of the shoulder socket.
I don't think sending an old retired lady, who has to supplement her meager income by working at Wally World to jail, would serve the community.
Waterdog
If one of them grabbed me, I would hesitate to pull my arm away for fear of pulling a muscleless arm out of the shoulder socket.
I don't think sending an old retired lady, who has to supplement her meager income by working at Wally World to jail, would serve the community.
Waterdog
Oh grow up Zundfolge, you use your judgement in a case such as that, had this person been old and retired, then they more than likely would have known better than to grab someone's arm and restrain them.
You sound just like the peace lover's I've faced in Israel, who protest the trial of known terrorists saying they were just expressing their feelings.
You sound just like the peace lover's I've faced in Israel, who protest the trial of known terrorists saying they were just expressing their feelings.
Sousana, like you, I choose not to wait in long lines AFTER I've already waited in a long line to pay for something. Nobody has ever tried to stop me from leaving.
In reading your 1st post, I notice that you thought the situation was serious enough to call 911. Also, the police thought it was serious enough to arrest the employee who grabbed you. And finally, the court thought it was serious enough to convict and punish the offender. All of this was recognized by Wal-Mart which apologized and compensated you.
The only people who think it was unimportant and the sort of thing you should have shrugged off seem to be those who weren't there at all.
Kudos to you, sousana. IMHO you did the right thing, showed restraint, and let the law take its course. And one of these small people in positions of minor authority has had his inclination to abuse others checked.
In reading your 1st post, I notice that you thought the situation was serious enough to call 911. Also, the police thought it was serious enough to arrest the employee who grabbed you. And finally, the court thought it was serious enough to convict and punish the offender. All of this was recognized by Wal-Mart which apologized and compensated you.
The only people who think it was unimportant and the sort of thing you should have shrugged off seem to be those who weren't there at all.
Kudos to you, sousana. IMHO you did the right thing, showed restraint, and let the law take its course. And one of these small people in positions of minor authority has had his inclination to abuse others checked.
sousana, I'm going to assume that you're new to this whole forum thing (and internet discussion in general)
but when you see one of these -->
or one of these -->
or one of these -->
or their ascii equivalents, you can pretty much assume that the post was intended in jest (just trying to lighten the mood of a pretty heavy argument)
<--that means indignant, not jest
Assault and battery laws are there to use against people who actually do harm...using them to strike out at someone who just offended your sensibilities is going a bit too far. Getting the guy fired, maybe even having him arrested and then dropping the charges...ok I could go for that. But jail for being belligerent? maybe I'm not the one who needs to grow up.
But I'm not going to keep beating you over the head with this...what's done is done and if you sleep well at night then what the hell does it matter what I think about it.
but when you see one of these -->
or one of these -->
or one of these -->
or their ascii equivalents, you can pretty much assume that the post was intended in jest (just trying to lighten the mood of a pretty heavy argument)
And you acted like I was out of line bringing up copyright violations
<--that means indignant, not jestAssault and battery laws are there to use against people who actually do harm...using them to strike out at someone who just offended your sensibilities is going a bit too far. Getting the guy fired, maybe even having him arrested and then dropping the charges...ok I could go for that. But jail for being belligerent? maybe I'm not the one who needs to grow up.
But I'm not going to keep beating you over the head with this...what's done is done and if you sleep well at night then what the hell does it matter what I think about it.
Keith Rogan
New member
>>>>>The little guy in the above case apparently needed to learn that if he wants the power to arrest, he needs to be a sworn peace officer.<<<<<
Every time I hear somebody say something like this it just blows my mind! This is the United States of America and EVERYONE has the right to effect an arrest when they witness a crime. The ONLY difference between you and a LEO is that he has a duty to arrest, while you have a choice to do so or not. In fact, citizens in many way have greater arrest powers than a LEO since many of the restrictions (Miranda, etc) only apply to law enforcement. Know your rights and know your responsibilities when you exercise those rights.
Along with the right to make an arrest, you have the responsibility (just like a LEO) to make sure you have valid grounds to do so. In the case above, the clerk had no valid grounds at all and I'm damned glad the little punk was slam-dunked for his stupidity and arrogance. With any luck, he turned around and sued Wal-Mart for placing him in that position in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him for his stupidity - ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Every time I hear somebody say something like this it just blows my mind! This is the United States of America and EVERYONE has the right to effect an arrest when they witness a crime. The ONLY difference between you and a LEO is that he has a duty to arrest, while you have a choice to do so or not. In fact, citizens in many way have greater arrest powers than a LEO since many of the restrictions (Miranda, etc) only apply to law enforcement. Know your rights and know your responsibilities when you exercise those rights.
Along with the right to make an arrest, you have the responsibility (just like a LEO) to make sure you have valid grounds to do so. In the case above, the clerk had no valid grounds at all and I'm damned glad the little punk was slam-dunked for his stupidity and arrogance. With any luck, he turned around and sued Wal-Mart for placing him in that position in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him for his stupidity - ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Grabbing my arm is assualt. Restraining me is detention and/or arrest. Can't see how anyone can see this any other way. Demanding to see (the contents of) my bag and (sales) receipt may or may not be considered belligerent. I wasn't there, so I won't make that judgement.
But sousana was there, and judged it to be a belligerent act. So?
Now lost amid all of this diatribe is the fact that certain stores in certain locations are detaining all of their customers for no real purpose other than to ascertain that they are not shoplifting. Unlawfull detention, by whatever means is a matter for a civil action, at the least, and possibly a crime at the worst.
A shop keeper or his representative have the authority, under most state laws that I'm aware of, to detain a person should they be under suspicion of shoplifting. Whether that detention occurs within the store or immediately outside the store is up to the statutes of the individual localities. Whether or not a search can be made would vary. In all instances, however, those who are arresting the citizen must call for a LEO at the earliest opportunity.
The fact that this action is applied en masse does by no means make it any less of an abuse. If anything, the idea that most of the sheeple consent to this just shows the extent that the average American is controlled by those perceived to be in authority. You don't like it, don't shop there.
The rest of this thread is just BS. I have on several occasions walked right past the so-called security checks (and this is what they are) at our local CostCo (yes, they use this tactic in the Twin Falls store) and have never been handled the way sousana was handled. Luckily, for them.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Zundfolge, your "location" in your profile says it all.
I'm not going to waste much time on this, except to say that if a store employee grabs me, then I will press charges, and Zundfolge ... I would give you the same courtesy. It is called assault and battery, period. And that is the nicest resonse they and you should expect. A punch in the nose shouldn't come as a surprise either. You don't simply grab people and expect to get away with it.
Friend, individual employees can and should be held responsible for their behavior. Do you think that Wal-Mart has trained them to grab customers? I don't think so.
What an inane argument.
I'm not going to waste much time on this, except to say that if a store employee grabs me, then I will press charges, and Zundfolge ... I would give you the same courtesy. It is called assault and battery, period. And that is the nicest resonse they and you should expect. A punch in the nose shouldn't come as a surprise either. You don't simply grab people and expect to get away with it.
Friend, individual employees can and should be held responsible for their behavior. Do you think that Wal-Mart has trained them to grab customers? I don't think so.
What an inane argument.
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
TOO COOL!
"The employee was arrested and my attorney contacted Walmarts corporate offices of my intent to sue Walmart for the assault and restraint. To make things short, the Employee was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in jail with 150 suspended, $500 fine and 40 hours of community service. Walmart settled with me out of court, they paid all attorney fee's, paid off my Walmart mastercard and added an additional credit to my card account."
"The employee was arrested and my attorney contacted Walmarts corporate offices of my intent to sue Walmart for the assault and restraint. To make things short, the Employee was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in jail with 150 suspended, $500 fine and 40 hours of community service. Walmart settled with me out of court, they paid all attorney fee's, paid off my Walmart mastercard and added an additional credit to my card account."
What a completely asinine remark
I have never once said that the WalMart employee didn't technically violate the law...however spending a month in jail with the possibility of 150 more days, plus the major roll that Big Brother is going to have in his life for the next decade or so is far beyond what the guy deserved. My point is that sousana took advantage of the technicality of the law to exact revenge for what amounts to this piss ant WalMart employee disrespecting him in public.
Honestly I think the world would be a better place if that's how sousana handled the situation.
Part of the process of "the people" becoming "the sheeple" is to turn to mama government to settle every little dispute.
Edited for politeness
Last edited:
poor sousana
i hate to say it but you were way wrong. you sued someone for touching your arm. boo hoo. ever wonder why products get more expensive everyday? it is because people sue someone over something silly like that.
you are never invited to my house for a hot cup of coffee. shame on you
stinger
i hate to say it but you were way wrong. you sued someone for touching your arm. boo hoo. ever wonder why products get more expensive everyday? it is because people sue someone over something silly like that.
you are never invited to my house for a hot cup of coffee. shame on you
stinger
Mike Irwin
Staff
You know, I've been used car shopping for the last couple of days.
Quite frankly, what happened at that WalMart is TAME in comparison to what is going on at the used car lots these days.
Quite frankly, what happened at that WalMart is TAME in comparison to what is going on at the used car lots these days.
I'd think you'd lose more sleep drinking some of that strong West Texas coffee you'd get over at Stinger's
Go back and re-read my posts...I've agreed with how you handled the store from the begining...it's the heavy handed way the employee was treated that was overkill. You "threw the book" at him, not because you where injured by his "assault" but because he insulted you.
Jail should be for people who actualy harm other people, not for petty crap like this.
I've said before that having him fired or even arrested and then dropping the charges would have been fine, but 30 days in jail?!
Mike in VA
New member
This thread is well into deceased equine flagellation, but no one seems to have picked up on the point that the drones were stopping everyone. This strikes me as blatant lack of probable cause, which in all the citations cited here, needs to be present for the store to stop you. They can't logically assume that your mere presence in the store makes you a shoplifter subject to seacrh or detention. Assuming further, that you have properly gone thru the check-out and paid for all your purchases, there's no reason to stop at these 'security check-points' unless you want to. Eff 'em and go about your business, if they forcibly stop you, they're yours.
Preserve Freedom
Boy, did you stir up the stuff!
I used to shop at that very Wal-Mart where you had the problem. Please remember a couple of things about that store, all of which have been given a lot of coverage in the Star in the past:
1. After school, young-uns go in there in waves to shoplift, overwhelming store security (such as it is) and getting away with a lot of loot. Since the punishment for a caught juvenile shoplifter is "banishment" from the store and a slap on the wrist, it's pretty good odds for the rest of them. The store knows when the punks are there (the cameras), and their version of a "lockdown" was probably in progress.
2. Since Wal-Mart is such a fair and equal retailer (and bound by the same coddle the crooks laws as everyone else), they couldn't possibly single out the obvious perps (some sort of discrimination lawsuit would be the result) so they've got to crowd everyone into the chute.
3. The Valencia Wal-Mart is a crime-central location, being one of the big parking lots in Tucson for acquiring vehicles to supply the federales across the border in Nogales. Hop on I-19, you're home. As a result, this store does not attract the most upscale customers.
I have good friends who live nearby (Midvale Park) and have never had a problem, so I don't want to run down your neighborhood. I lived pretty close myself. Wal-Mart took the chance on that location but I don't blame them for trying to avoid being robbed blind.
Up here in Virginia, our store doesn't have that problem. It's too crowded--no one can move that fast.
Boy, did you stir up the stuff!
I used to shop at that very Wal-Mart where you had the problem. Please remember a couple of things about that store, all of which have been given a lot of coverage in the Star in the past:
1. After school, young-uns go in there in waves to shoplift, overwhelming store security (such as it is) and getting away with a lot of loot. Since the punishment for a caught juvenile shoplifter is "banishment" from the store and a slap on the wrist, it's pretty good odds for the rest of them. The store knows when the punks are there (the cameras), and their version of a "lockdown" was probably in progress.
2. Since Wal-Mart is such a fair and equal retailer (and bound by the same coddle the crooks laws as everyone else), they couldn't possibly single out the obvious perps (some sort of discrimination lawsuit would be the result) so they've got to crowd everyone into the chute.
3. The Valencia Wal-Mart is a crime-central location, being one of the big parking lots in Tucson for acquiring vehicles to supply the federales across the border in Nogales. Hop on I-19, you're home. As a result, this store does not attract the most upscale customers.
I have good friends who live nearby (Midvale Park) and have never had a problem, so I don't want to run down your neighborhood. I lived pretty close myself. Wal-Mart took the chance on that location but I don't blame them for trying to avoid being robbed blind.
Up here in Virginia, our store doesn't have that problem. It's too crowded--no one can move that fast
.- Status