Found my "RED LINE"

[benenglish]

Could be before my joining though.

Definitely. It was quite a while back.

 

[Axxe55]

Definitely. It was quite a while back.

These videos shows a fatal shooting of a shoplifter at our WalMart in Palestine. He was observed shoplifting, but got outside the store and made it a short ways to the Appleby's next to the store. The police were called to deal with the incident. This happened just a few years ago.

 

[candcallen]

Walmart had several LP staff killed chasing people thru parking lots around corners, something you never do, trying to pull them out of cars etc. Even getting in vehicle chases.

Stupid.

Plus they had several people they were chasing get killed by basically running into traffic, or being chased into traffic.

Anyways they are limited in what they can do to restrain and pursue now. Limited by their company policies.

Referring to greeters physically stopping you by grabbing you or your cart, that's a major phucking no no. I dont care what a store manager says they are not allowed to stop you at all what so ever. Again company rules. They are detaining you at that point with your property. As long as you pay for it.


And for the scales at the self check out you can choose not to bag and continue and even bag it in the cart. Sometimes it will call the cashier over to check sometimes it wont but I'll bet they do nothing more than enter their code and allow you to finish.

 

[Axxe55]

Many companies have policies forbidding an employee from confronting or chasing a shoplifter or a thief.

 

[Dougw1515]

They may not have the "right" to stop/search/request receipt. They can, however, ban you from their store/premises and have you physically removed and jailed for trespass should you attempt to violate the no trespass order. It's their store and they do have some rights as well. You don't give up you're rights if you own a business.

 

[candcallen]

I'm appealing to the TGT hive mind here because I can't find it but I seem to remember a really contentious confrontation caught on video of three guys who intimidated and held a customer at a Walmart (I think; I might be wrong). The police were called and the customer was let go. The video depicted the three employees as being very menacing, the sorts who set off all the alarm bells in your subconscious whenever they draw near.

Some months later, those three guys lost control of a guy who didn't want to show a receipt. The customer got outside where the three guys caught up to him and, via various methods of violence, managed to kill the customer.

It turned out that those three guys had records and complaints going back quite a ways and really shouldn't have been hired for that sort of job. They were arrested though I don't know how that turned out.

Does anybody else remember this? I think there was a thread about it here on TGT.

I dont remember that. I'll ask around.

I do know that job collects a lot of pussies who cant be cops or got picked on or for what ever reason shouldn't be a night watchman at a closed graveyard much less stopping people. Those are the people who do stupid shit, usually in groups cause they are too afraid to act like that one on one.

I did the job for the stimulation of the chase and investigation that didnt involve all the bs the day job was becoming. Same thing as the day job in many respects with much less documentation and paperwork and simpler rules.

I worked in some high theft stores where you caught more people than you could ever process during a shift. Had plenty of weapons pulled on me, been hit a couple times by cars because people couldnt just be happy with getting away and had to phuck with you on the way out of the parking lot and lots and lots of fights. Mostly just restraining people, not really fights as they are just trying to get away, but some people would turn and fight just to try and hurt you.

I assisted in the first auto double nipple amputation. A guy came in shirtless in the summer in phoenix and filled his baggy pants with cartons of ciggs then left. I stopped him but he took off running thru the lot. When I tackled him I wrapped up both his arms at his waist and he hit the pavement and slid across it. I jumped up quickly to pull him up cause you can get 3rd degree burns on the pavement in Phoenix in the summer. I learned him up against a car, not much cooler, and cuffed him quickly.

At the door I noticed alot of blood in his reflection, had to get in before someone tried to help him cause this was the hood bigtime so I didnt do much more but to make sure he had no weapons near his cuffed hands out side, and i turned him to look and both nipples were gone with raw road rash left. The idiot was so high on an opioid he couldnt even feel it. Lol

I say auto amputation cause if he didnt go shirtless or steal or run it wouldnt have happened.

I asked him why no shirt and he thought it would make security not watch him. I'm looking, said, oh good camo dude, but did you think shoving cartons of cigarettes down your pants at the front of the store as flying under the radar? I said most people buy ciggs at the register they dont walk up to the huge rack open it and shove them down their pants.

I said maybe you can be a new bond villain. They had the 3 nipple man so maybe the no nipple man would work. Again too stoned to get it.

Sorry I ramble sometimes.

 

[Axxe55]

They may not have the "right" to stop/search/request receipt. They can, however, ban you from their store/premises and have you physically removed and jailed for trespass should you attempt to violate the no trespass order. It's their store and they do have some rights as well. You don't give up you're rights if you own a business.

This is an opinion and observation, and some of what I opine may not be factual.

Only the government, or someone acting in their capacity as a representative, can violate your Constitutional rights. A private entity like a business can't violate your Constitutional rights, but they can violate a person's civil rights.

I have seen the "door greeters" checking receipts going about it in several ways over the last few years. Some stores they are checking everyone. And those who refuse are allowed to continue on and not stopped in any way. Since the CV19 hit, the few times we have gone to WalMart, I'm not seeing them checking really anyone.

I wonder if there have been some problems or issues of customers challenging their policy of checking receipts and they have changed how they deal with people who refuse to have their receipt checked. Could be a liability issue and them getting sued or something.

People who refused and were issued trespassing warnings, I would venture a guess, it might have been for acting like complete idiots and getting stupid, and not just for refusing to have their receipt checked. But that is entirely a guess on my part.

 

[candcallen]

They may not have the "right" to stop/search/request receipt. They can, however, ban you from their store/premises and have you physically removed and jailed for trespass should you attempt to violate the no trespass order. It's their store and they do have some rights as well. You don't give up you're rights if you own a business.

Note a couple of clarification edits below.

Dont know where the disconnect is. They have every legal right to stop you for stealing or to check receipts and detain you if you are stealing or vandalizing. Any employee can "legally" do this. There is a thin line where this goes into illegal detention etc. Which is why most err way to the safe side with their policies.

It's been said several times the company policy forbids this and it has been discussed why they do things differently. Detaining someone for doing nothing wrong is a felony.

Never did the job in texas but in most states you can technically legally be arrested/ detained and forced to pay steep civil restitution or even prosecuted for opening a drink and drinking it before you pay for it but stores policies say otherwise. That's the point.

Most of us submit to this crap, receipt checks waiting in lines etc at times and we're probably being a dick for not doing it when we decide not today. Like a temp check at a restaurant the foundation for the thread. The restaurant probably has every legal right to do so but you decided that was your hill to die on that day.

As far as trespass warnings, consider that the exercise is futile. Detaining you and holding you for the police to be called and officially trespass you from the store, which is required if there is to be any future arrest and actual penalty, for walking by a greeters and not submitting to a receipt check when everything you have is paid for. That's not going to go well when you bitch to higher ups. Again why policy is what it is.

 

[Younggun]

Dont know where the disconnect is. They have every legal right to stop you, check receipts and detain you. Any employee can "legally" do this.

It's been said several times the company policy forbids this and it has been discussed why they do things differently.

Never did the job in texas but in most states you can be arrested and forced to pay steep civil restitution for opening a drink before you pay for it but stores policies say otherwise. That's the point.

Most of us submit to this crap at times and were being a dick for not doing it when we decide not today. Like a temp check at a restaurant the foundation for the thread. The restaurant probably has every legal right to do so but you decided that was your hill to die on that day.

No they can’t. What are they going to “legally detain” you for? Seriously, they can throw you out, but they can’t stop you from leaving.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, ANDSMUGGLING OF PERSONS

statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[candcallen]

No they can’t. What are they going to “legally detain” you for? Seriously, they can throw you out, but they can’t stop you from leaving.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, ANDSMUGGLING OF PERSONS

statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was talking about stealing. I'll edit my post to clarify.

And legally they can check your receipts.

The problem is when that becomes not legal is a thin line which is why most companies have policies erring way to the safe side.

 

[Axxe55]

Here's an interesting question. Why does WalMart really check the receipts?

I know, they might say it's to catch and deter theft, but IMO I find that to be false, since of all the security measures in place, like RFID in high ticket items, numerous cameras and many other things we might not be seeing.

Is it some form of conditioning?

I do remember quite some years ago, the only time a "door greeter" checked a receipt was when the alarm went off if the item hadn't been scammed properly and deactivated when it was checked out. They would check the receipt and let you go on your way. No big deal.

 

[candcallen]

Just a deterrent. Even the EAS tags that set off alarms are a deterrent. Loss prevention policies used to be a comprehensive plan but thru apathy litigation and less investment there are lots of holes in that coverage or plan now days.

Stores used to really track and limit your returns especially without receipts. Now daysbthey track your data for other uses. Not so much to limit refund fraud anymore.

Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way, if companies have the balls to fight lawyers and social media reviews calling them "what ever" for stupidly thinking people should pay for their merchandise.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'm appealing to the TGT hive mind here because I can't find it but I seem to remember a really contentious confrontation caught on video of three guys who intimidated and held a customer at a Walmart (I think; I might be wrong). The police were called and the customer was let go. The video depicted the three employees as being very menacing, the sorts who set off all the alarm bells in your subconscious whenever they draw near.

Some months later, those three guys lost control of a guy who didn't want to show a receipt. The customer got outside where the three guys caught up to him and, via various methods of violence, managed to kill the customer.

It turned out that those three guys had records and complaints going back quite a ways and really shouldn't have been hired for that sort of job. They were arrested though I don't know how that turned out.

Does anybody else remember this? I think there was a thread about it here on TGT.

This one?

New documents detail Wal-Mart killing of suspected shoplifter

Rebecca Baggett told detectives she saw three people running through the parking lot at Wal-Mart just after 3 the morning of Feb. 7.

www.theledger.com

 

[Younggun]

I was talking about stealing. I'll edit my post to clarify.

And legally they can check your receipts.

The problem is when that becomes not legal is a thin line which is why most companies have policies erring way to the safe side.

On what grounds? What is their legal justification to stop me and force me to show them a receipt?

It can’t be suspicion of theft since they tend to stop everyone and it’s unreasonable to assume everyone is a thief.

And if denying them the ability to look is considered suspicious it just turns in to a failure by circular logic. You have the right to deny due to lack of suspicion but denial constitutes suspicion so the right to deny would no longer exist.


As I said before. They can kick you out and ban you for not submitting to their policy, but they can’t detain you without some kind of actual evidence or reasonable suspicion.

IF Walmart sets their policy as “We check your receipt or you stay out” so be it. But afaik that is not the policy. I do believe they have the right to set that policy, 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[candcallen]

On what grounds? What is their legal justification to stop me and force me to show them a receipt?

It can’t be suspicion of theft since they tend to stop everyone and it’s unreasonable to assume everyone is a thief.

And if denying them the ability to look is considered suspicious it just turns in to a failure by circular logic. You have the right to deny due to lack of suspicion but denial constitutes suspicion so the right to deny would no longer exist.


As I said before. They can kick you out and ban you for not submitting to their policy, but they can’t detain you without some kind of actual evidence or reasonable suspicion.

IF Walmart sets their policy as “We check your receipt or you stay out” so be it. But afaik that is not the policy. I do believe they have the right to set that policy, 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I explained earlier the steps for stopping and detaining for theft.

I agreed that detaining you for simply refusing to show your receipt will be crossing a line if you paid for your stuff which is why companies have policies against such things. Which is why I said forcing you to stay by holding your cart or grabbing your arm is a no no.

They have a right to not have their stuff stolen.

You have a right not to be unlawfully detained.

They have a right to detain thieves.

All humans make mistakes. Thank god I never made that mistake and detained someone who didnt have the stolen item on them.

 

[Charlie]

I do not go to Wal-Mart if I can avoid it.

Edit to add: I do not go to any stores (with the exception of gun stores) if I can avoid it.

 

[Younggun]

I explained earlier the steps for stopping and detaining for theft.

I agreed that detaining you for simply refusing to show your receipt will be crossing a line if you paid for your stuff which is why companies have policies against such things. Which is why I said forcing you to stay by holding your cart or grabbing your arm is a no no.

They have a right to not have their stuff stolen.

You have a right not to be unlawfully detained.

They have a right to detain thieves.

All humans make mistakes. Thank god I never made that mistake and detained someone who didnt have the stolen item on them.

You seem to base everything on them being able to stop you from leaving because you wouldn’t allow them to stop you from leaving. You’re once again at the point of circular logic.

The right to not have their stuff stolen isn’t applicable here. Not without a reasonable suspicion of theft. And this entire Walmart discussion is about the broad application of receipt checking. They can ban you. They can’t detain.

Prove me wrong with something from Texas.gov.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Merely an opinion. But I think it enters some of the same area as citizen's arrests. Lots of gray areas in the law as to what a private citizen can and can't do to detain another person if they suspect them of some sort of criminal activity. Because a person can have good intentions of thinking they are doing the right thing in stopping a crime or catching a criminal, and find themselves in some deep legal hot water for their actions. Even find themselves being the one charged with criminal actions.

I think this may have lead to many companies adopting policies that it's better to just assume, or absorb the loss from theft or shoplifting, rather than to be facing huge lawsuits from people who may feel they were illegally detained by an employee.

 

[candcallen]

This one?

New documents detail Wal-Mart killing of suspected shoplifter

Rebecca Baggett told detectives she saw three people running through the parking lot at Wal-Mart just after 3 the morning of Feb. 7.

www.theledger.com

Another reason they arent allowed to chase and fight anymore at walmart.

 

[candcallen]

You seem to base everything on them being able to stop you from leaving because you wouldn’t allow them to stop you from leaving. You’re once again at the point of circular logic.

The right to not have their stuff stolen isn’t applicable here. Not without a reasonable suspicion of theft. And this entire Walmart discussion is about the broad application of receipt checking. They can ban you. They can’t detain.

Prove me wrong with something from Texas.gov.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is nothing to prove you wrong on. I think the confusion is coming from mixing discussion of 2 different things. Stopping you for theft and simply checking a receipt. Not clearly defining the two in the comments.

Again I explained the steps required to stop you for theft. Go back and read them cause we dont disagree. They have steps to follow which is basically them knowing sure and certain fact you stole something and concealed or didnt pay for it and left the store. They aren't going to stop you otherwise or it's their ars, job and a nice chunk of change in your favor.

I also explained that they cant detain you for simply not having a receipt. Said that several times. I explained company policy is that the greeters arent supposed to be doing that because it can become unlawfull detention very easily. You dont legally have to show receipt to get out of the store. Not in texas or AZ. It doesn't mean they cant ask and there is no requirement that they not ask.

See we dont disagree.

They can ask all they want. You complying is a courtesy, nothing more. This is why stopping people for no receipt is fraught with danger and legal jeopardy for the store, and why as we said a half dozen times the company's policy is against it.

I think things get confusing when discussing the two different things. Saying they can ask you to show a receipt doesn't mean they have a right to insist or detain you for refusing.

They may ask because you stole something and they already decided to detain you at which point them asking is simply a technique to get you to stop and comply.






Sam's club and costco check receipts as part of your membership agreement and are irrelevant here for that part of the discussion. .