Calm man buys TV at Walmart and successfully avoids receipt checking at door

[Liberal_in_LA]

legends of receipt checking
Calm Man Successfully Buys TV And Denies Walmart Receipt Checkers

Rick is the Gandhi of receipt-check deniers. He writes in with a story of how he bought a 37 inch TV from Walmart and was able to successfully say no to the receipt checker blocking his way with his body.
Rick writes:

----------------

I made it through the first set of doors into the front atrium of the store, but before reaching the outer doors I heard a man say "Sir?" I turned and faced Tony, the receipt checker.

Tony: May I see your receipt?
Me: No thanks!
Tony: Oh, ok. :evilgrin:

I turned and continued walking towards to automatic doors. Tony called again, so I turned back.

Tony: No, I need to see your receipt.
Me: No thank you!
Tony: What do you mean?
Me: I mean no thanks; I'm walking to my car with my purchase.
Tony: Well, I need to see your receipt.
Me: I just purchased this TV in the back of the store. I don't need to show you a receipt.
Tony: Yes, you need to show me your receipt.
Me: Actually, state law dictates that once I pay for something, I don't need to show ownership of it. I just paid for this TV, the receipt is in my pocket, but my hands are full, and I don't feel like getting it out. I'm going to leave now, thank you.

At this point Tony has positioned himself between me and the door. As I step towards the door he places his hand on the box in my hands and lightly pushes back, preventing me from moving.

http://consumerist.com/2011/03/calm-man-successfully-buys-tv-and-denies-walmart-receipt-checkers.html

[Jamastiene]

1. .

:spray:

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Here, you need something to go with that drink

:popcorn:

[Jamastiene]

330. I honestly thought it was an Onion piece.

Or some other parody. I cannot believe that someone was able to escape Wal Mart without the Receipt Nazis winning.

:rofl:

[CBGLuthier]

2. god bless him.

[fascisthunter]

3. BJ's have this gross policy too

they treat everybody as a possible suspect of theft. Way to make your customers feel good about shopping.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. BJs is a membership store and you agree to the check as part of membership

[TheCowsCameHome]

66. Probably because purchases aren't bagged.

I have no problem with BJ's.

[Ikonoklast]

115. Me either.

Oh. You meant the store.


They're OK, too, I guess.

[winstars]

135. Late, but "That's what I said" nt.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. When asked for my receipt, I always say...

"If you don't trust my checker, call the police." And I walk right past them. I will no longer condone this bullshit.

[KansDem]

5. Sounds like Tony has a future with TSA

As for the woman who was harassing Rick, she's the reason we have these problems...

[Dappleganger]

7. This man understands that our freedom and rights are slowly being chipped away

because most people don't challenge them and stand up, but would rather give in so they won't endure the hassle or embarrassment. We all need to stand up more often in the small things, such as not giving in to illegal searches w/out cause when being stopped by a traffic cop, etc. The more people who give in to this the more we become a police state.

[SDuderstadt]

10. You have got to be...

fucking kidding.

[MineralMan]

8. Much ado over nothing. When I hand carry an item like that out

of any store, the receipt is in one of the hands I'm carrying it with, facing outward. Nobody ever asks to see it, because they can see it. Pretty easy, it seems to me, causes me no hardship, and speeds my exit from the store.

The two times I can remember when I accidentally left a store with an item in my cart that I had inadvertently not checked out, I immediately returned to the store and paid for the item. I'm a very honest person. So, I don't mind displaying my receipt as I exit the store. Not everyone is honest, and the store employees don't know that I am honest.

I do what causes me the least hassle.

[Modern_Matthew]

42. Agreed. Thieves do grab TVs and walk out the door like nothing is wrong. They have to check.

They're not grabbing your balls or anything. It's simply to see a piece of paper. Some people are just petty.

[MineralMan]

46. Yup. I used to have a retail shop. Lots of stuff walked out the door

in people's pockets. Very annoying. I closed the shop, finally, and just did online sales.

[orleans]

324. why can't they put a piece of marked tape on the box to show that

it's been paid for like the grocery store does with gallons of milk or cases of water and pop?

[Liquorice]

108. I had a Walmart checker ask to see my receipt when my purchases

were in a bag. Then she went through everything in the bag and checked it against the receipt. Walmart doesn't only check when something isn't in a bag.

[MH1]

264. agreed. I do the same, and it's simple enough.

(I always know to expect the voice of reasons in your posts, MineralMan!)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Yes, letting your workers believe that receipt checking is mandatory is stupid and petty.

Better training is in order.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Do you really think the receipt checker...

decided to check receipts on his own? Or, do you claim the store has no right to check receipts?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. The latter...the store can not force a receipt check without prior agreement

Store policy really does not matter. Some LPO types take that better than others.

[SDuderstadt]

15. LPO? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Loss prevention officer...which is what they like to be called

Several LPOs were fired after dealing with me improperly...it got to the point where it was no longer sporting.

[dionysus]

123. what a hero, getting some minimum wage workers fired! you are the wind, beneath my wingsssss...

:rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

126. What makes you think the LPOs are minimum wage?

The greeters (who are min wage) retreat as soon as challenged, the LPOs *sometimes* think they are cops. The last time that happened the manager offered to fire him so I would not call the cops and have charges filed. I agreed even though several felonies had been committed and shopkeepers privilege was not applicable.

Nice to know why you have worn knees on your pants...

[Ignis]

144. So allowing a minimum wage worker to assault him would be better?

Wearing a greeter badge doesn't make someone a cop, and they don't have the right to detain others.

Some people appear to be hard-wired and/or trained to kowtow to any rent-a-cop with an attitude. The rest of us are disinclined to play a part in others' prison-guard fantasies.

[unapatriciated]

243. many Loss prevention officers get their kicks from harassing people

My son was constantly harassed at our local grocery store by their LPO simply because of how he dressed. He is very thin due to muscle wasting from dermatomyositis and wears flannel shirts even in summer (to hide is thinness and protect his skin from sunlight). I finally had enough of his bullshit when he searched my son (and found nothing) while making very derogatory comments about his appearance in front of other customers. I complained, demanded and received a written apology for the constant harassment. The only reason he kept his job was because he agreed to attend a class on sensitivity and customer relations.
You can roll around and laugh all you want but LPO's can be pricks, they are usually not minimum wage employees like the receipt checker at Wally World.
The one's who work the night shift are the worst at profiling and harassment (they do it for fun). I know this because I have worked many a night shift with them. I found their attitude toward people who do not dress or look conservative to be rude and demeaning. The ones I have worked with think that anyone with tattoos, piercings or unusual attire are thieves and deserve to be harassed.

[SDuderstadt]

246. Now you are presenting a totally different issue....

no one is advocating anyone being harassed like your son.

[unapatriciated]

249. No, it is the same issue that Progressive Professor stated and you laughed at.

You can not pick and choose who you are going to check. It's either a store policy to check everyone or no one.
That is the point.

[SDuderstadt]

272. "no one is advocating anyone being harassed like your son"

How you can misinterpret my exact words is a mysery known apparently only to you.

In order to be legal (in the broadest sense of the word) policies not only have to be reasonable, they must be applied uniformly and reasonably.

[Exilednight]

306. It's against the law in most states for an LPO to stop anyone without probable cause. As soon as

they stop you they open themselves to lawsuit. Anytime you accuse anyone of theft, the burden of proof is upon you to prove it.

Personally, I would of kept walking and made them physically detain me against my will. Once they do that you can, also, sue for false arrest, or possibly even kidnapping depending on the state.

[SDuderstadt]

307. Wrong...

the standard is "reasonable grounds", a lower burden than "probable cause".

[Exilednight]

308. Once you start with reasonable grounds, if they physically detain you it comes probable cause. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

309. Please prove that....n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

312. You are correct, but there are limitations and there can be repercussions

A merchant claiming reasonable suspicion to invoke Shopkeeper's Privilege is subject to significant judicial scrutiny, and may lose big in court. They can even be arrested by the police on the spot for illegal detention. Saying that they thought something had occurred (good faith) is not an allowable defense. That is why many large chains do not pursue shoplifters into the parking lot and fire employees who do. Refusal to show a receipt is not considered reasonable suspicion.

The last LPO I got fired came after me in a parking lot even though I had not yet entered the store where he was employed. He had no grounds to assert Shopkeeper's Privilege nor cause to threaten me with pepper spray. Had the police been called he would have been arrested. Instead he was fired on the spot.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. The store has no right to detain customers who decline the request.

The store has no right to make receipt check mandatory except in the case of membership stores like Costco where it's stipulated in the agreement as a condition of membership.


eta: to answer your questions,

Do you really think the receipt checker decided to check receipts on his own?
No, only that the checker was improperly trained on the procedure.

Or, do you claim the store has no right to check receipts?
No, only that this type of store has no right to require that customers comply nor does it have the right to detain customers on this basis.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

30. If I've paid for something and am leaving the store,

I am not going to be treated like a potential thief and stop and show the receipt. Nor will I patronize stores that have this idiotic policy of assuming every single customer is a thief and requiring them to prove otherwise. Legally, you do not have to show proof of ownership once you've paid for something, period.

[Ignis]

82. "do you claim the store has no right to check receipts?"

Can you point us to the law that gives non-membership stores the right to do so, and to detain those who refuse to comply?

[SDuderstadt]

83. Dude...

Do you really think laws have to be written to cover every potential business situation???

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. Shopkeepers Privilege, despite your false contention, certainly does not

which is the legal tool to address shoplifting. So yes, they can not compel you legally and that is by design.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

140. Ahh, so these are just laws you've made up in your

A citizen attempting to detain another citizen from leaving a store (without suspicion of shoplifting) does so at his or her own peril. The law doesn't care if you're wearing a greeter badge or not.

[SDuderstadt]

142. Well, thank the stars we have you to...

protect us from "creeping fascism", dude.

[Ignis]

145. So, to be clear. you support the right of greeters to assault other citizens?

What ritual or rite empowers them with this extralegal power, anyway?

And do they have the power only when wearing the Almighty Greeter Badge, or at all times of their employment with a big-box chain store?

:shrug:

Inquiring minds, and all that.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. That's what the Wal-Mart "assaulter" is for.

Greeter should stick to greeting. :rofl:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

315. You are amazing.

[tabasco]

37. Sit boy!

Good citizen!

[LanternWaste]

65. I imagine that applies

I imagine that applies to drivers who stop at red lights too.

[tabasco]

71. LOL!

Traffic safety = Walmart security.

Good one!! :rofl:

[Ignis]

146. How is the loss prevention of a private store the same as public safety?

:shrug:

[LanternWaste]

213. They are both the same part and parcel

They are both the same part and parcel of the oft-proclaimed Nanny-State :shrug:

[Cronus Protagonist]

70. lol

Good one! :D

[Mybrokenchains]

16. i usually keep a pocket full of confetti for these instances...

sir, i need to check your reciept

sure no problem....BLAMO! multicolored confetti everywhere

then i calmly walk away...leaving them wondering what the hell just happened

[meow mix]

73. +rec

[theaocp]

127. Excellent! +1 n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Magicians flash paper would work great for that too

[Fuddnik]

152. I'll remember that.

I love it when I go to CompUSA, and the register is 3 steps from the receipt checker, who just saw me go through the line, and asks to check my bag.

[blueamy66]

230. like

:-)

[upi402]

17. Tackle the radical!

This man clearly is a trouble-maker! Get him! Tackle the commie!!!!!


WalMart is crap and I hope we all boycott that corporatist monster. That guy should connect the next dot and shop elsewhere.

[PCIntern]

19. Yeah, I don't know...

On the one hand...yeah, you probably have certain legal rights and can exercise them...

OTOH,theft can close a store...we lost the convenience store across the street b/c the architecture was such that people could exit a door without paying and by the time the cashier reacted he/she was gone, and what was the cashier, paid about minimum wage, going to do anyway? Git the Sherriff? the chain, Wawa, finally gave up and just closed the store and we have no place to buy Slim Jims or overwarmed hot dogs...:cry:

[Zax2me]

20. Is this an actual fetish - no show receipt rights?

What is this.
First, they came for my receipt
THEN, they came for my union card
Doesn't really fit, does it, especially with real world problems going on in Japan and injustices in Wisconsin...
Maybe once we tackle this, we can help children forced to show the hall monitor their bathroom pass.

[bluestateguy]

22. I find that practice of recipet checking to be insulting and patronizing

I try to avoid such stores, if I must do so, I will make it known to the employee that I am cooperating under protest.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Why cooperate?

[CBGLuthier]

24. Bend to Your Corporate Masters' Will Proles

Humorous how anyone on the left can defend the store's bullshit. Erosion of rights is actually an ongoing issue in this country and the motherfucking earthquake in japan is no excuse for it not to be.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. What "right" is there to walk out of a store with a TV without proving you paid for it?

Cancer grannies being thrown in prison for smoking pot? THAT is an erosion of rights. Having to show a reciept walking out a wal-mart? Someone who has a problem with that needs to get a life.

[tabasco]

166. What right does a store have to accuse you of stealing

without reason?

[Warren DeMontague]

173. The store has a right to set rules for customers. Customers can either deal, or shop somewhere else.

Some "customers" DO steal. It happens. Now, I realize that it may be personally disconcerting to believe they are accusing YOU of stealing, because undoubtedly YOU are a wonderfully honest and decent human being, but to a big box store, YOU are just A Customer. And that means that YOU might be stealing.

Don't like it, don't shop there.

[tabasco]

214. LOL!

Where are the rules specified and where do you sign the contract when you enter the store.

There is no implied consent to be searched.

Walmart invites you onto their property and establishes no rules, other than exist under the law.

They have NO RIGHT to infringe on your Fourth Amendment rights, without cause.

With cause, they have limited rights to do so.

Your post is just blather, not any kind of intelligent statement.

Pick up a book sometime.

[SDuderstadt]

215. Strike a blow against fascism!

I will be sending you one of our, "Fighting fascism, one WalMart at a time!" t-shirts.

[Name removed]

357. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blueamy66]

231. Good answer.

Those stupid German Jews that were unfortuante to live in Nazi Germany.

They didn't like the "rules".....go elsewhere.....really???

[SDuderstadt]

235. Oh, please...

the situations are not even remotely comparable.

[blueamy66]

238. yeah they are

I'm not gonna let some Nazi Wal Mart $5 an hour employee ruffle through my bags to make sure that I paid for everything.

Fuck them.

[SDuderstadt]

239. Excuse me, but that is absurd...

Thanks for helping DU more closely resemble the mirror image of FreeRepublic.

[blueamy66]

298. whatever

nt...hope I can sleep tonite

[Warren DeMontague]

254. Ah, so that's what it's about. Some "minimum wage dirtbag" thinking YOU are a thief.

:eyes:

[blueamy66]

299. Yeah, that's what it is about

ANYONE thinking that I am a thief is a dirtbag....got it?

[Warren DeMontague]

300. You are a bipedal, carbon-based organism inside the store, and those have been known to steal.

If you want to take it personally, that's your problem. It's not.

[blueamy66]

302. can you speak English?

I just spent $100 at Wallyworld and nobdy checked my bags.

If they would have, I would have asked...no insisted on ....to return EVERYTHING and walked out.

I work too hard for my money...as does my fiance...if someone wants to do this BS to me....they lose my bizzness.

[Warren DeMontague]

316. And if having that sort of temper tantrum is important to you over such a non-issue

I enthusiastically urge you to continue to shop at stores where that policy won't be a problem.

Also: When I said "bipedal, carbon based organism", what did you think I was speaking? French?

Should I dumb it down for you?

Okay-- Yur An Earthling. A Human Bean. Of the person persuasion.

Is that "English" enuf fur yuh?

[Warren DeMontague]

253. I had relatives in the camps, buddy.

Your whiny little temper tantrum over having to show a receipt for the big-screen tv has jack diddly shit with the Holocaust.

I hope you're proud of your deeply offensive analogy and your massively way-out-of-whack priorities and sense of entitlement.

[blueamy66]

329. I'm not a "buddy". K?

This is an internet message board. Don't get your panties in a wad over something someone posted here.

I will never show a receipt for anything, to anyone. I refuse to give in to "the man", as others do.

Got it?

[SDuderstadt]

333. This is satire...

right?

You do understand that the reason you're getting flak is the wholly inappropriate "Nazi" comparison you're making, right? Or, do you even care?

[Warren DeMontague]

334. Excuse me. As someone who had relatives die in the Holocaust, I absolutely WILL get my "panties in a

wad" over dumb-shit, hyperbolic (look! More French! :rofl:) analogies comparing having to show a reciept in a big box store to Nazi Germany.

If you don't like it, add it to the list of meaningless crap you feel compelled to whine about.

Got it?

[JohnnyRingo]

26. The "associate" at the door learned a valuable lesson.

Not all "associates" at WalMart are equal. Indeed they aren't even close to equals if you ask the Waltons.

Refering to an hourly worker as an associate is a psycological attempt to make menial laborors feel instrumental in a vastly lopsided structure of shared success. I think that "associate" at the door has just been mentally demoted to a lemming WalMart greeter by his "associate", the assistant daytime manager in charge of walking the floor.

[Fuddnik]

158. Funny thing about Wal-Mart.

I normally avoid them like the plague. But, I needed 20 bags of soil for some more raised bed garden boxes I was putting in. And Wal-Mart was $2.00 a bag cheaper for the same brand, so I went there. I want to the register in the garden center, purchased the 20 bags, went to the parking lot where the bags were stacked with nobody around, loaded them and left.

I could have taken 50, but only took the 20 I paid for. Nobody out there checking.

[demwing]

344. He wasn't an "associate"

he was a "particular individual."

[SoCalDem]

27. Costco is the only store I shop at, that asks

I have not been inside a walmart in a decade or more..

The thing that gets me is this.. Unless they have changed the configuration of their stores, you cannot even get to an exit without going thru a checkstand, so of course you would have a receipt, having just checked out...:eyes:

[walldude]

35. Yeah but as a member part of what you agree too is

having your receipt checked. I do like how they tell you it's so they can make sure you got everything you paid for...

Fact is I love Costco and if it gives some person a gig with a good employer I'm happy to show my receipt...

[SoCalDem]

36. I never mind having them check it.. and I know it's part of their business model

I did not say I objected to it.. And one time they found out that we were double charged for catfood:) saved me a trip back for a refund:)

[walldude]

49. Sorry didn't mean to imply you objected

it was more a shout out to Costco... :toast:

[EFerrari]

41. Costco would be the one place I don't mind this at all.

I love Costco, too. And the deal there is, you get to save some money by agreeing to do some of the work yourself.

That's not like some other places where the deal seems to be, you pay retail and we treat you like a criminal, not like our customer. That's a little too close to how this whole country is running for me.

[Xithras]

54. Yes, and even in Costco, you DO maintain your right of refusal.

Most Costco greeters are trained well enough to let you go without arguing much, if you do refuse.

Of course, they'll also revoke your membership without refund, so it's not something I'd recommend.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. I love how people are outraged that stores might want to prevent shoplifting.

There's a lot of fucking theft out there, and Robin Hood/"Les Miserables" fantasizing aside, it's not done by heroes sticking it to our corporate masters. It's done by people stealing shit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. There are any number of ways to effectively do that without door checks

And WalMart uses most of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. Not being a Wal-Mart customer, I wouldn't know.

But I'm kind of of the opinion that it's their store, their rules. If people don't like it, they should shop elsewhere.

[Orsino]

162. And it's simply fasterbettercheaper to intimidate customers at the door...

...than it is to hire enough store detectives to keep shoplifting down to a dull roar.

We can be trained to do the former for free, in most cases.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. You're "intimidated" by having to show someone a reciept?

You might want to raise that intimidation threshold.

[Orsino]

216. I think you could see how being detained at the door could be intimidating. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

98. You can get to an exit without going through a checkstand at all of our local WMs. N/T

[SoCalDem]

172. I haven't been in one in years, but when they built the one here

the in & out doors are separated with metal railings & you have to go past/thru checkstands .. and they had "overseers" roaming at the ends of the lines between the registers and the receipt checkers.. creepy to the max..

[GreenStormCloud]

200. I have never been in one like that.

In all the ones here one goes directly from the doors into the store floor and can exit the same way.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. A few reasons why doing this or applauding this is ass-holishness

First off, this is the kind of individualism-worship and "specialness" that more typifies conservatives than liberals.

1) The poor schlub who's asking you is now being put into a VERY difficult position that could EASILY jeopardize his/her job. This person is a member of the working poor or barely-scraping-by member of our community, and shouldn't be fucked with. If you want to scorn "the man", go find him.

2) Whether one likes it or not, this is a capitalistic society, and property belongs to its owner, even if it's an evil organization. This is something firebrand idiots like Mike Gravel don't understand, and it's an embarrassment to the rest of us lefties who want to point out to reactionaries that we're civilized.

3) It's not a big imposition. Show the damned thing.

4) Shoplifting hurts businesses, their employees, the tax base and society itself. By being a snot about it, society suffers.

5) Join the fucking human race; if you don't want to ever be bothered by the nuisance of other people's lives, go live like a hermit out in the barren heath somewhere.

6) It's not always "cool" to stick it to the man; often it's just counterproductive to those who have bigger axes to grind with corporatism.

7) It's not a slippery slope to fascist domination, it's simple inventory control and reasonable skepticism. If you don't think people often steal, you're blinkered by self-reverential holier-than-thou grandstanding and deserve flak like this.

8) It makes any questioning of corporate intrusion sound silly, because this is perfectly reasonable confirmation.

9) Doing this wastes everybody's time and slows down the flow of humanity; once again, this literally reeks of selfish specialness. Would someone who promotes this also applaud someone else slowing them down? If so they need to go out and work some retail and get a grip.

10) The very advancement of such a policy is beyond idiotic and childish, and further pollutes the common atmosphere of life. It sounds like a flaming narcissist looking for attention and a further forum to prove that only HE is a truly sentient being and that the rest of us are all losers, chumps and sheep. The self-importance of this is enough to make a sensible person cringe and barf.

[ReggieVeggie]

32. "3) It's not a big imposition. Show the damned thing."

Is that a law? If I don't show it, do I have to give it back? I say if I'm walking out the door holding a large item and the greeter demands to see the receipt, I will counter-demand that the greeter go get the cashier who handled my purchase to verify that I, in fact, just bought the damned thing.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I have to show my reciept at Costco

along with having to show my ID at the airport, I swear, I might as well be in Treblinka. :sarcasm:

[Modern_Matthew]

43. +1 Well said, sir. Well said. These people are just as bad as the "Sovereign Citizens" nt

[Warren DeMontague]

280. Ugh. Thanks for reminding me.

Like I said, I once worked for a chain of indie video stores. I remember vividly spending an entire morning in the Early 90s (the first big wave of Anti-Clinton, Rush Limbaugh assholery) arguing with some dickstick who tried to sign up with a "sovereign drivers license" that looked like he'd printed at Kinko's. He was flapping his arms around, demanding to see the amendment to the constitution that said he needed a State ID to rent a copy of "Hudson Hawk" or whatever turd it was he wanted to take home.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. +1,000,000,000,000,000

I can't tell you how many self-entitled pricks I dealt with in years or retail service who felt they were dressing up their assholishness in some grand "principle".

I used to work in a video store, and I had people fucking writing what they obviously thought were graduate level theses on why late fees for videotapes were unconstitutional. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

91. I am a different kind of consumer...

I once went to return a video a day late and, as I walked into the store, a sign indicated that the store charged a dollar per late day.

As I approached the counter, I said to the clerk, "this movie is a day late and, as it turns out, I'm a dollar short, too!". Of course, I wasn't and paid the fee, but the clerk and I had a good laugh anyhow.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. In my experience, 30% of the customer base was really cool- I became friends with lots of them.

65% weren't real memorable either way; they just came in, did their business, paid and left. Fine.

But that other 5%... ohhhhh, that other 5%... Over time, they would drive the best and the brightest out of their fucking MINDS.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. Outstanding post! N/T

[JoeyT]

177. Many of your arguments work against you as well as for you.

1) The poor schlub will pretty much automatically pass the buck up the chain. If he doesn't he should. Then you can tell the "man" to fuck off.

2) You're right. Property does belong to the owner. It's HIS TV. He paid for it. If Wal-Mart wanted to retain any right to it whatsoever, they shouldn't have sold it.

3) It's a big imposition if the person it's being asked of thinks it is.

4) Then they can hire security to prevent shoplifting. They're trying to get by on the cheap like everything else Wal-Mart does.

5) Some people don't think like you do. They may not like being accused of stealing when they're not guilty of it. Join the human race etc etc.

7) Again, hire some fucking security.

8) Once more, hire some security. And no, accusing me of stealing my own property isn't perfectly reasonable.

9) No, allowing them to check the receipt slows everything down. Saying "No thanks!" and walking right by them speeds everything up.


Most of your arguments are the exact same arguments put forward for why no one should mind when a TSA guy is fondling their nutsack to determine if their left testicle could be an explosive.

[Incitatus]

189. very good points nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

192. + + + + for point #1 alone. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

233. It's assholish of retailers to present this as a mandatory step.

It's also assholish of the retailers to put their employees in the position of trying to do a good job without having the proper tools and knowledge to do so.

And finally, it's assholish to decline the receipt check in a way that ridicules or demeans the receipt checker.


However, it's sobering to see that anyone here thinks the customer who declines politely is at fault.
You mention that property belongs to the owner -- exactly. Once a customer has paid for the merchandise, that customer is the owner. That's the crux of the issue. The items are then no different from the clothing you wore into the store or the contents of your pockets. Keep in mind that retailers, when pressed, admit that receipt checks are not meant to be an accusation of shoplifting and are voluntary.

While there may be no giant civil rights issue at stake here, it is an intrusion, no matter how minor, and customers who decline to participate aren't the troublemakers. Representing receipt checks without making clear that they're voluntary is intentional on the part of the retailers because their own research shows that there is a higher rate of compliance if customers are unaware that they may opt out. If more customers declined to participate the retailers would either do away with the checks because they're no longer cost efficient, or they would offer customers a direct incentive (like a discount) for participation.

[renate]

288. two thumbs up!

I'd give you more thumbs if I had 'em.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MedicalAdmin]

48. I agree. We should be required to carry reciepts for everything all the time.

Everything. Clothing. Car. Eyeglasses. After all you might be a thief and we need to check. ....


Papers, please?

[SDuderstadt]

80. Stupid strawman argument...

no one is remotely advocating that

[Warren DeMontague]

88. No, we should be required to wear clown shoes and eat nothing BUT reciepts

because obviously, one leads to an another.

:eyes:

[AngryOldDem]

61. You hear about Wal-mart getting ripped off big time all the time.

So apparently not everyone is as diligent about checking reciepts, especially with big-ticket items.

I've never run across this at Wal-mart but I have at Best Buy. I just hold up the reciept and sack and go on my way. I've got enough shit going on in my life without getting bent out of shape over a slight inconvenience.

[sarcasmo]

31. Walmart stores give me the creepy crawlies.

[MilesColtrane]

33. I thought this was going to be an Onion article.

There are really people who do this?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. A growing number of us do this

What is even funnier is when they stop you and you have not been in the store. That has happened to me twice, once and an undergrad and again recently. Then they do not even have Shopkeepers Privilege to fall back on...

[EFerrari]

34. Very nice job.

He did a good job, staying pleasant and not punishing the employees for the company's stupid cr@p.

[AzDar]

38. Isn't demanding one's receipt essentially accusing someone of stealing;

by asking that they prove that they have, indeed, not stolen ?

:shrug:

[Cronus Protagonist]

74. Correct. It is an assumption of guilt.

And the "good Germans" all go along with it too. Sad to see in a great country such as this.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Yes. Because although you might wish that they know you as an honest upstanding citizen

lots of people steal shit.

[MedicalAdmin]

184. The presumption of guilt.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. When they ask you to pay for your stuff, aren't they presuming your word isn't your fiduciary bond?

I mean, really, they should just hand you the 50 Inch Plasma and let you give them a crudely written note on a crumpled up napkin that says "I WILL PAY FOR MY TV SET, SIGNED SOME DUDE"

...

it should be just as good as money, because by rudely demanding that you pay them FIRST, they're presuming you're not someone who pays his debts.

[MedicalAdmin]

244. Care to crawl out any farther on the crazy plank?

WTF does your post have to do with, well, anything?

[Warren DeMontague]

251. Everything. They should trust you, not make you hand over cash or a credit card.

Otherwise, they're saying you're not good for it.

[MedicalAdmin]

332. You do get that value must be exchanged for ownership to transfer, right?

If not then it's theft. You do get that, don't you?

If I'm not a thief and the store doesn't have evidence that I'm a thief then they have no justification to search anything. You seem to be maintaining that stores gain the right to unlawful searches because someone somewhere has been shoplifting something from somewhere. They have no more right to ask for a reciept than they do to ask to look in my wallet or pockets or anal cavity.

The stores that are allowed to check receipts are not open to the general public and have reciept checking preauthorized and granted to them by the customer in a mutual non binding agreement. Stores open to the public operate under different assumptions. That you dislike and have encountered dicks in your life of retail doesn't change that no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

[Warren DeMontague]

335. Honestly, this is by far one of the dumbest fucking temper tantrums some people here like to have.

And that's saying something. I mean, the folks endlessly tyrannized by having to step outside the IHOP to light a cigarette are bad, but this is even worse.

The store sees you carrying a big screen tv out the door, that's enough "evidence" of your potential thievery for them to ask to see "evidence" that you paid for it.

But whatever. Since this is obviously the most important thing you've got going on in the world right now, I heartily encourage you to go to as many big box stores as you can and make life simply miserable for all concerned in your brave crusade to liberate mankind from the oppressive practice or receipt checking. Knock yourself out.

Enjoy that whiny sense of entitlement. Sorry that having (or being asked) to show a receipt upon leaving Wal-Mart is so personally distressing to you. Life is tough, isn't it?

[MedicalAdmin]

346. Rights don't distress me at all.

I make every effort to be polite but I am not required to prove I'm innocent. The store is required to prove I'm guilty.

The stores could reconfigure their layout to make sure that anyone walking out has passed through a checkout stand, but they don't. They could require employees to carry out or accompany all purchases to the door, but they don't. They choose not to for reasons of their own. It's their property and they an donwith it want they want. I reserve the same right.

Rights that can limited or taken away are never there in the first place. This is not my passion or the most important thing in my life right now. I choose to stand on the side of citizens rights on every issue. You choose not to. And that's your right. 99% of the time I'm never asked for receipts. I deone showing one for the other 1% and I do so politely. Why do you care?

[Warren DeMontague]

347. I think lionizing self-centered, arrogant dipwads like the "hero" of the OP is goofy, that's why.

Like I said. I spent enough time in retail to be plenty familiar with the personality type. Usually the real problem is, they need to get laid.

[MedicalAdmin]

351. Red light. Green light.

I haven't lionized anyone, although you may be right that others have. My guess is that your assumption is that I am an asshole. And I'm assuming, so you're right, given what is usually said re:assumptions; that assumptions make an ass out of u and me.

Perhaps we should both put our flails down and step away from the dead horse.

Cheerio.

[Warren DeMontague]

352. No, not making any assumptions about you.

The type in the OP, though, with his clucking and smirking about "calm man refuses to show receipt"... I just know the type. Grinning, with a pole up his ass, as he makes some poor minimum wage shlub's day extra-difficult.

Not a reflection on you, but on him? Yes.

Peace.

[MedicalAdmin]

358. On this point we agree.

Although the moment the clerk restrained him, that is both battery (probably misdemeanor) and unlawful confinement. Or at least it is in Minnesota where I know the laws pretty well (former officer). I felt that the OP TV dude showed restraint but could have been more polite. But he is correct that he is under no compunction to show his reciept unless he chooses to and shopkeepers are allowed to restrain reasonably IF they have evidence to reasonably suspect a theft. However, if they are wrong then if they have held and restrained or hurt someone while doing that, then they are liable for any crimes they commit and civil damages, just like any other legal entity. Usually if the cops are called the LPO's have something tangible and EVERYONE knows it. At that point it's all over but the police report. But in the rare occasions some employee oversteps their legal authority (mostly derived from the right to be safe within your home and person and safe from unreasonable search or seizure of property or person) then they are responsible for thier actions. Just like everyone else.

And yes, I used to work retail. Most people are pretty cool. Some just want to shop and a few are serious buttmunchs. It goes with the territory. As does theft. Some stores have made conscious decisions to run skeleton crews with no way to make sure that crime is not easy in their stores (walmart is an obvious example of this - check out the crime stats on areas that have these stores in them). They attract theft like shit attracts flies. Those choices of thier part still don't abrogate anyones rights.

They can ask. They can't demand. And anyone who refuses should show a little class and be polite and do what they can to defuse the tension of the situation.

[Modern_Matthew]

40. Meh. People should learn to pick their battles. Associates put up with enough crap. nt

[Taitertots]

45. Illegal detention isn't enough for you to stand up?

But it is those actively violating the rights of others that you are worried about.

[DRoseDARs]

51. You feel threatened by octagenarians with arthritis?

Dude, seriously, have a little respect for the wage slaves at Walmart. It's not their fault the policy sucks. They'd like to keep their jobs, shitty as they are.

[Taitertots]

55. No, I feel outraged that Walmart can illegally detain people

They are adults and they are certainly responsible for their actions. The "but they told me to" excuse is bullshit that went out with the Nazis.

[DRoseDARs]

64. How nice that you've gone and unnecessarily Godwinized this.

Because minimum wage workers = SS troopers :eyes:

[Incitatus]

188. It takes you like 2 seconds to show a receipt.

You are acting like they are holding people up for hours and strip searching them. This isn't the TSA we're talking about.

[Taitertots]

198. Why are you making excuses for Walmart breaking the law?

The law is absolutely not ambiguous, they are breaking it by refusing to let you leave.

[MikeW]

205. then write Walmart or call the store manager

Taking it up with (at least in my Walmart) the senior citizen greeter who also doubles as the receipt checker

is just being a jerk.

Better still call the state AG see how far you get.

[Ignis]

338. "It takes you like 2 seconds to show proof of citizenship in Arizona."

Are you sure you've thought this argument through to its logical conclusion?

[SDuderstadt]

340. Those aren't remotely comparable situations n/t

[Ignis]

356. And yet the authoritarian philosophical underpinning is the same.

[SDuderstadt]

360. "authoritarian philosophical underpinning"

LOL

[Ignis]

365. Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, dude. Thanks for sharing.

Shall I just check in with you before I bother posting next time?

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

367. No, it's more fun to...

not exercise prior restraint.

Are we cross?

[EFerrari]

47. Respecting customers and state law is crap, is it?

:)

[Gormy Cuss]

50. People shouldn't be rude to the "associates" but customers shouldn't be treated like crap either.

Some people have picked this battle. Just because you haven't that doesn't make it an illegitimate battle. FWIW, I respect customers who just say no even though I generally comply with the request -- but I know that it's voluntary.

[Xithras]

57. There's no battle to pick here.

1. If it's WalMarts policy that checkers detain people who refuse to show the receipt, while WalMart is fully aware that the policy is illegal, any associate arrested for illegal detainment would have a clear and easily winnable case against Walmart. They'd be annoyed at being arrested, but would end up with a huge chunk of change in their pockets.

2. If it's not WalMarts policy that people actually be detained for this, then the Associates SHOULD be arrested and fired, because they're violating both the law and their employers policy.

The greater good requires that these rules be challenged.

[demwing]

179. Meh. People should learn to stand up for their rights. Consumers put up with enough crap. /nt

[Taitertots]

44. Walmart can illegally detain people and so few here seem to care

So many cowards just capitulate at the tiniest of burden. It is really a pathetic and a clear example of what is destroying America.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. They can not illegally detain you and won't if you object...many just acquiesce

[Taitertots]

59. That is exactly what happened in the article

That is exactly what happens the moment they obstruct your exit.

[A Simple Game]

164. Is it illegal to detain in all jurisdictions,

or can local laws allow it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

252. Context matters here

If they invoke Shopkeepers Privilege they can detain you for a reasonable period of time until law enforcement arrives. If they do not invoke Shopkeepers Privilege or it is inapplicable, they can not detain you. There may be other nuances in whatever state you are in. Learn what those are since it matters.

Most chain stores, including those prominent in this thread, enjoin their employees from chasing after shoplifters, even LPOs in many cases. However, if you acquiece to their non enforceable demands...

[A Simple Game]

262. Thanks ProgressiveProfessor nt

[Generic Other]

52. The only reason I will show you the receipt is to return the item

Your choice.

[Iggo]

60. I like this response.

[MedicalAdmin]

53. I'm not a dick about it, but I don't show reciepts.

It's documentation of a private contract between me and the store and no ones business once I have purchased it legally. And once I own it I don't have to show and reciept and I don't.

So far, no store drone has been dumb enough to touch me, but I know a teenage girl who was battered and assaulted by a few company cops. She was restrained and grabbed and shoved into her car. She sued, as she should have, and she won. If some representative of the company touches me it's battery. I have very bad balance and a spinal injury. If this had been me being restrained by some clerk I would have lost my balance and crashed to the floor, probably with the TV on top of my face. And in this case, there was no way for the clerk to know otherwise.

Stores, especially big chains have had ample warning and knowledge of this and choose not to train their employees in how to comply with the law and set up policies that are directly in contravention of law and they deserve every lawsuit and bit of bad publicity that happens as a result of these kinds of negligent management (dis)actions.

But I am always polite to the poor slobs working the door. They don't know better and are just following the bad advice of their equally misinformed managers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. With a few exceptions, even Walmart associates back off

The training is better than many think. They will press until it is clear you will not go along and then back down. There have been a few memorable exceptions to that which make for good blogging

[MedicalAdmin]

183. That has certainly been my personal experience.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

62. This is idiotic. What's the big deal? Just show the damn receipt.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. It's FASCISM, MAN!

And, it, like totally makes it harder to shoplift, too, which can be sort of inconvenient for shoplifters.

[SDuderstadt]

167. We should make t-shirts!

"Fighting Fascism, one WalMart at a time!".

[RebelOne]

63. I have bought many items at Best Buy

and have never been asked for a receipt as I left the store. And there has always been a person at the door when as I left. Maybe I just have an honest face.

[MedicalAdmin]

186. Best buy settled for big $$$$ several times because they had a policy

Of demanding to see receipts. They no longer have this policy because the losses from the policy was potentially more than shoplifting had they continued it.

That's why they don't demand anymore. They screwed up. They paid. And they learned.

[jp11]

67. I'd just add that I've never had my items verified, as in look at receipt look at goods

it is a cursory check to see that the receipt is 'valid' ie not some old receipt or scrap of paper or to just mark it as 'checked', but I haven't ever bought anything pricey there.

[mindwalker_i]

68. This is training to allow "authority" to do what they want to you

I always leave Fry's with a polite "no thankyou," but it still bothers me to have these people conditioning everybody to just do what the authority tells them to do. Now, too many people go through the airports and just say, "well it's ok, it for our security" when TSA grabs their ass and feels around in it.

[Cowpunk]

69. Neat story, but I've got a better idea. Don't shop at Wal-Mart

There's a good reason their new logo is a giant golden asshole.

[lildreamer316]

77. I understand, but we've had this argument here before, many times.

It would be wonderful if many ppl did not shop at Walmart. But, many have to.
Why?
1)Because it may be the only store for food and other necessities for miles around. We have several DUers for whom Walmart is sometimes the only option. Seriously.
2)Because, if you've been paying attention to the general way things are going in this country, many people cannot afford anything else. (also, see #1 - they may not have other 'cheap' options such as Kmart or Target or such). It is not always our/their fault that we can't protest with our pocketbook - children have to be clothed and fed.
Our corporatist overlords have so far limited our options and our jobs that often we have no where else to go. I remember when I was on WIC - I could get more formula for my WIC dollar at Walmart than anywhere else,and with a hungry growing baby, that was imperative.

[ElboRuum]

277. *** SNORT ***

Now I'm going to think that every time I pass a WalMart. Golden asshole. Brilliant.

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. This article brought to you by Jacoby & Meyers.

Just think of all the lawsuits that'll be spawned from people trying this out.
Wait until they call the cops. Wait until they some bozo tries this out in a state where they can be detained in the store.

Makes me want to go to law school just thinking about it.

[lildreamer316]

78. How do we find out what states have these laws?

Sorry, I'm just not sure where to begin looking.

[Shagbark Hickory]

79. Laws or no laws, if you don't like having your head mashed into the pavement by the police,

try doing this somewhere with some big budget cuts.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Wife: "What did you do today, honey?"

Husband: "I fought back against fascism".

Wife: "What did you do?".

Husband: "I refused to show my receipt at Best Buy!".

Wife: "My hero!".

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Another victory against THE MAN!!!!

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

85. "Now I am starting to fill like the prick the woman near us keeps calling me."

Yeah, dude. That's because you're a fucking prick, a petty asshole who lives to make life miserable for the minimum wage retail workers you inflict your idiotic "crusades" on.

Take it from someone who's been there.

[mistertrickster]

97. His first mistake was walking into the store . . . nt

[GreenStormCloud]

89. What's the big deal.? Lots of stores besides WM check reciepts.

I don't see any big deal about taking a couple of seconds to show the reciept. I know I am going to have to do it so I have it ready.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. The big deal is, people like to have temper tantrums about meaningless shit.

It's one of the things that makes working in retail such a living hell.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. The Nazis were notorious for making High Def TV purchasers show their reciepts.

According to my relatives who were in concentration camps, it was, like, totally one of the worst parts of the whole thing. :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

102. Receipt checker: "Sir, I'll need to check your receipt".

DU Freedom Fighter: "Fascist!"

[Scout]

343. and some people like to have temper tantrums over the temper tantrums thrown

by someone else, and tell them that THEIR temper tantrums are stupid, but MY tantrum over YOUR tantrum is just fine.

:ROFL:

[Tesha]

105. The big deal is the store has no right to do what they're doing.

In the same way as the government has no right to
wire tap you without a court order or kill you without
due process of law, corporations have no right (absent
some agreement with you or "probable cause" such as
observing you conceal merchandise) to ask you to prove
that you just bought the goods you're leaving the store
with.

And every time we tacitly accept our rights being
infringed upon, it becomes that much easier to do
it again the next time, only more so.

But Americans have become very good over the last
ten years at willingly discarding the rights that
many other Americans fought and died for in the past.

Tesha

[SDuderstadt]

107. Oh, bullshit

No one died in any war so that I woudn't have to observe a store policy and show my receipt when I leave.

Stupid, petty shit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. Your position is wrong and you know it.

It is more convenient to acquiesce, but it is still a choice and not a mandate. Some choose not to.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Sorry...

it's not nearly as black-and-white as you suggest.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. Challenge them and find out

Any chain is fearful of being sued over this. That is why the WM manager backed off. I have also won in these tiffs in several states, and had several LPOs fired. Acquiesce to whomever you please but take your FUDs elsewhere.

Everyone should know the law of the state they reside in. From there it is their choice on what to do.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

137. Those that were fired were done in lieu of felony charges

which at the time their bosses thought was a good deal. They broke the company rules and the law, admittedly incited by my unwillingness to respect their "authority" and my laughter at their "orders".

The last time the LPO ran up to me in the parking lot, demanding I return to the store which I had not even entered. When I dismounted my motorcycle, he started waving pepper spray in my face (felony). He was fired immediately and I agreed not to call the cops.

[NeoConsSuck]

366. If you have this many issues

just going out shopping, what is the rest of your life like?

I'm afraid to ask if you go to restaurants.

[SDuderstadt]

369. Yeah....

I'd hate to be around if there was ever a seating mixup on a flight and the attendeant asked to see his bording pass.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Dude...

let me ask you a question. Does the 1st amendment give you the right to commandeer the P.A. system at Sears (for example)? Do you understand that retail establishments have the right to set reasonable policies regarding your conduct?

This is getting stupid.

[Tesha]

141. Do YOU understand that many states have SPECIFIC STATE LAWS prohibiting EXACTLY this behavior?

Is it okay with you that Walmart is violating these
state laws?

If it is, what other laws do you support multi-billion-
dollar corporations violating?

Tesha

[SDuderstadt]

143. I think all Walmart executives should be...

shot at sunrise.

Happy now?

[Tesha]

148. I understand; you *KNOW* you lost this argument several hours ago and...

...now you're just trying to hide amid smoke,
distractions, and hyperbole.

Man up, dude.

Tesha

[Ignis]

147. Store policy is not law. Why is that so very, very hard to understand?

I hope you never find yourself in a store that has a policy allowing its salespersons to kick customers in the nuts.

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

156. If I had 10 bucks for every goofy fucking strawman argument being floated in this thread

I'd have a lot of money.

[Ignis]

219. I'm sorry you had to slog through retail. That doesn't make policy law.

Non-membership stores are welcome to try to enforce whatever policy they have posted. If the enforcement of that policy conflicts with law--e.g., a greeter attempting to detail a shopper for not showing a receipt--then the law trumps the policy.

Again, I'm not sure what's so very hard to comprehend here.

[SDuderstadt]

237. Apparently....

you don't understand the difference between "statute law" and "common law".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

256. I do, and neither provides a basis in law for mandatory receipt checks

or allows false imprisonment for not doing so

[Ignis]

337. Perhaps you could stop the personal attacks long enough to make your argument.

That's asking a lot, I know. But give it a try.

[SDuderstadt]

339. Dude...

harsh criticism and candid observations aren't a "personal attack".

Perhaps you should review your posts to me and follow your own counsel.

[Ignis]

354. Great, please provide proof for "You don't understand XYZ"

[SDuderstadt]

361. Dude...

an opinion doesn't need proof. I don't care whether you believe me or not.

[Ignis]

363. "You're an asshole" is also an opinion...AND a personal attack.

I wouldn't feel compelled to support such an opinion, either, but it's certainly not fair play by the DU rules.

So if you'd like to offer any substantive criticisms of my arguments, I welcome them. But if you're just going to continue to offer opinions regarding what you perceive to be my personal failings, I suggest you post them somewhere else than DU.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

368. Ooh, clever....

an indirect personal attack.

Are you having trouble with the rough and tumble of debate?

[Warren DeMontague]

353. One can be within their rights re: the law and still be a flaming butthole.

See Phelps, Fred.

[Ignis]

355. Sure, but employees of a private store cannot enforce their policies as law.

If I'm disinclined to comply with a request to show a receipt at a non-membership store, that shouldn't result in assault, battery, or unlawful detention. That's because law trumps store policy.

I understand the store might have inventory concerns.
I understand that it only takes "2 seconds" to show a receipt.
I understand that greeters don't write store policy.

But what I don't understand is why some are so quick to blame those who dare to question the ability of a private corporation to detain a US citizen without probable cause of shoplifting. There are laws written around this interaction, and they are specific. When store employees--glorious heroes of the proletariat though they might be--act like assholes to customers, those stores should expect customers to avoid playing their reindeer games.

I don't apologize one whit for knowing my rights. I don't take advantage them at every opportunity, but that is my decision--not the store's.

[SDuderstadt]

362. "reindeer games"

LOL!

Strike a blow against fascism, dude! Too funny.

[Name removed]

364. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

314. Actually I think you would still be retail...not that many strawmen being used

[SDuderstadt]

163. Where did I say store policy is....

"law", dude?

Oh, another one of your strawman arguments.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. Yes. Having to show your reciept is "discarding your rights".

:eyes:

No, actually, it isn't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

257. Its a choice, and some choose not to

[SDuderstadt]

161. Yes!

The other night we were watching "Saving Private Ryan". During the infamous Omaha Beach landing scene, when American soldiers were dropping left and right, I said (in my best Clark Griswold voice), "Just remember, kids...they died so that we don't have to have our receipts checked upon leaving WalMart!".

Too funny.

[Tesha]

202. As I said in reply #148... (NT)

[SDuderstadt]

204. Yes...

I always find self-declarations of winning so...convincing.

[mistertrickster]

94. Why would anybody buy anything at FUCKING Wal-Mart? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

103. Because the prices are low.

Many people aren't rich like you and can't afford the high priced politically correct places.

[mistertrickster]

129. Rich like me . . . if that weren't such a laugh, I'd flag your post . . . nt

[GreenStormCloud]

169. Obviously you must have the money to afford higher prices. N/T

[mistertrickster]

221. Why do you accept the WalMart LIE that their prices are actually lower?

You should never assume that what they say is true.

Because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.

Me, not so much.

Bottom line: Wal-Mart's prices are NOT lower than the competition, especially compared to the internet . . .

See Frontline: "Is Wal-Mart Good for America" Here's a clip with former store manager Jon Lehman--

Interviewer: So are you saying that the opening price is the lowest price and actually will beat the competition, but maybe other items in the same category aren't necessarily the lowest price?

Lehman: Oh, absolutely not. It's just like fishing-- You want to entice that fish to that lure. ... Once you walk past that opening price point, they've got you, because you've already formed the perception that everything in that department is the lowest price in town.


Interviewer: And maybe it's not.

Lehman: No, it's not. No, I can tell you it's not. I can tell you from experience it's not. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/interviews/lehman.html

[GreenStormCloud]

240. It isn't a lie. I have compared the prices, personally.

On the stuff that we buy I wrote down the prices and compared to other stores. I do buy online for those things that I can wait for shipping and aren't too heavy and cost a lot to ship. But groceries I doesn't work out too well trying to buy online. Shoes I want to try on before I buy. WM introduced the $4 medicines and that has been a huge help for my wife and I. Of course you won't give WM credit for doing anything good and will ignore the $4 meds.

You also need to factor in the cost in gas and time of driving to different stores. A WM supercenter has all of our routine needs under one roof. One stop saves time and gas.

Further, most major chains allow one to check what is in the store and at what price so I can compare before I leave the house.

I don't buy everything at WM. Fresh fruits and veggies I buy from a fruit & veggie stand about two block away.

Meats I get from David's supermarket by watching for the Reduced-For-Quick-Sale stuff. It is usually 1/2 price. They are about 1/4 mile away which is close enough to check the reduced counter daily. They also have other deep discounts on stuff that at the expiration date.

Next to David's is a dollar store. We have two of them in town. Lots of items we get there, because they are cheaper.

We are old folks with SS as our primary income, supplemented by our jobs. We have to watch our money very closely. WM does save us a LOT of money.

[mistertrickster]

265. You must live in a very small town . . .

Where I live, WM also offers $4 generics, but so does a big grocery store chain and others.

As for "Wal-Mart doing a lot of good," well . . . so does slavery.

[GreenStormCloud]

297. Population about 2,000.

Slavery? You are just posturing.

WM was the first to bring out the $4 drugs. Others had to follow or lose customers.

Basically, you want me to pay higher prices so you can feel good politically.

[jmowreader]

119. Because in quite a few places, there's nowhere else to go

Walmart has put so many stores out of business, there are places where the only shopping is Walmart. I don't know about you, but I'm not ordering toilet paper from Amazon--and yes, they sell it.

[mistertrickster]

130. You have a point there . . . Hadn't thought of that. nt

[VoteProgressive]

99. Be make life for that man even harder? Low pay and then jerks harass them.

[Brigid]

100. Is this guy for real?

He has nothing better to do with his time than to waste it making life difficult for some hapless Wal-Mart employee? I bought a computer at Best Buy a couple of weeks ago, and I honestly don't remember if I had to show my receipt as I left the store with it or not. If I did, it took all of two seconds versus the 30 minutes or so this guy wasted acting like a prick. Life's too short, dude.

[JI7]

101. I don't have a problem with this, not everything is done for some horrible conspiracy

of invading your lives .

it's just to prevent theft. it might be different if they asked to check your personal belongings like your bag, purse etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. All it takes is one of these threads to remind me why I never want another retail job

all the puffed up, egotistical, self-entitled whiners dressing up their need to make some poor shlub's life difficult in some grand "principle".

"It's the principle". Yes, and the "principle" is, you're being an asshole.

[MedicalAdmin]

191. They are check your personal belongings.

Did the guy in the op own the tv? Was it his? Was he stealing? Is he a thief?

They asked to check his property. He declined and was subject to battery.

[JI7]

193. i'm sure a lot of people would steal , it's a store he bought the item in

i see nothing wrong with asking for a receipt to make sure they did purchase it.

and he was not subject to battery.

stop with the drama

[MedicalAdmin]

247. It ain't drama, it's law. The clerk physically restrained.

And they can ask all they want, but in order to restrain or confine someone without a tangible and legal reason to do so - not so much.

[MedicalAdmin]

359. To refine my answer.

They can ask. They can't demand and they can't restrain or physically contact a customer to do the same unless they have tangible evidence of a crime. Shopkeepers privilege extends but not to the presumption of guilt.

And yes, I was a drama queen. It comes from being on stage as a child. "one - singlular sensation - every reciept I check. Do, do, do, dobe de do. One - singlular obsession - every bag that I kvetch..." *shuffle, kick, spin and step* *jazz hands and BIG SMILE*

[Xenotime]

104. Who shops at Wal-Mag?

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Senior Citizens on SS as only income,...

people on food stamps, people who only make minimum wage, people who don't want to drive to a bunch of different stores, and people who don't want to spend a lot of extra money for the same stuff somewhere else.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. Sometimes they are the only place you have or see traveling on the Interstate

[RandomThoughts]

110. Same thing happened to me. Although at a bar.

I was defending principles of due process for some crippled guy.

Then they got pissed because they could not intimidate me. Then they lied and used smear to make it seem like I did wrong. They said I should have cooperated, if they had been polite I might have. But they had no right to compel me to do anything, especially to be mean, or break the law, when there only claim was their use of intimidation.

That is when I realized anarchy, and even worse backward justice had infected the system.

That was many years ago. Been at war ever since, war without fighting of coarse.


I began to try and educate, after a few years of getting kicked around, only thing I could think of.

And of coarse.

Reminding people that I am still due beer and travel money and many experiences.

Maybe you could teach Walmart a lesson.

[Joe the Revelator]

113. First they came for the receipts, but I did not speak up because I was not a receipt.

[SDuderstadt]

118. LOL!

Too funny.

[dionysus]

124. you win the thread.

[Curmudgeoness]

128. You speak the truth. And it seems that there are a lot of people

who need to think about this.

[SDuderstadt]

199. Permission requested to...

put that as a slogan on a t-shirt.

[midnight armadillo]

116. MA law on this

ref: http://www.malawforum.com/content/do-i-have-show-my-receipt-or-stop-false-alarms-store-security-sensors
Q: ...You paid for the merchandise so the receipt and items you bought are your property so they should have no legal right to search you. Would bypassing the receipt check be sufficient grounds for the store to physically detain you or call the police?...

A: That is an interesting question. Generally speaking, store security in Massachusetts have the right to detain you and search you if they act reasonably and have probable cause to do so (as where they witness a person placing merchandise under a coat). See this section of the Massachusetts General Laws:

Chapter 231: Section 94B. False arrest; shoplifting; defrauding innkeepers; defenses

So unless they have probable cause that you were shoplifting they can't stop you and you're not required to show a receipt. I've usually encountered this between the checkout register and the door...next time I'll say "no thanks" and continue on my merry way (since I've always been irritated by this) - hardly grounds for probable cause.

[underpants]

121. Enter: "Hi! Welcome to Walmart" Exit: "Are you a thief?"

[meow mix]

187. right, and thats after you give them money. fck it

im gonna be a receipt prick too

[Duer 157099]

125. Best solution of all: don't ever shop at WalMart

I know that for some, this has become impossible. But that's only because when it used to be possible, too many people opted for the "low low prices" that they could not resist and eventually WalMart bullied all of the competition away.

So sad. We saw it happening and tried to warn everyone, but they didn't care.

[kudzu22]

131. You think that's bad, try buing a gun at Wal-Mart

They won't even hand it to you until you're out of the store. But, at least the jerk at the door doesn't ask to see your receipt :D

[ProgressiveProfessor]

132. They will often take TVs or appliances to the curb for you too

[Generic Brad]

150. It's a receipt check, not an anal probe

Personally, I hardly think this is invasive. If stores didn't do this, many would be robbed blind. If they are robbed blind repeatedly, they will go out of business. Then where the hell will I shop?

[GoneOffShore]

165. That will be next.

And if Wally world goes out of business some other rip off artist will take their place.

[fishwax]

168. it's neither heroic nor assholish

Although I look back fondly on the old Circuit City "Papers, Please" thread, I can't bring myself to get worked up either way. Everybody has their own limits.

If you want to show your receipt, go for it. It's not an inconvenience, it results in less hassle (at least in the short term), and maybe it helps the store reduce losses by shoplifting (although I'm skeptical that TPB catch a ton of shoplifters this way or that it significantly reduces their losses). If, as some critics allege, doing so is an acquiescence to creeping fascism, well, it's a very tiny step indeed. It's perfectly fine to show your receipt and save your energy for other battles.

If you want to refuse to show your receipt, go for it. Not submitting to such demands on your time and energy doesn't make you a jerk, and if that's how you want to spend your time then go for it. If, as some critics allege, it inconveniences other people or puts a worker in an awkward spot, well, that's really the fault of policy, training, or behavior that asserts for the company a power and authority that they don't actually have.

Refusing makes one neither a freedom fighter nor an enemy of the working class.

[GreenStormCloud]

170. Yes, the policy does reduce theft.

There have been several posters who have claimed that receipt checking does not reduce theft. Think about it. Would WM or Fry's pay receipt checkers if it wasn't proven to reduce theft? They have lots of stores. It is fairly easy for them to experiment and compare the loss rate of stores with checkers and those without. The only reason that they continue to pay them is because their accountants have print-outs that show that the checkers are improving store profits.

I have no objection to making such a minor effort in help stop theft. Thieves are not progressive revolutionaries fighting the system, they are predators who hurt everybody.

[Incitatus]

190. It seems some people are too thin skinned or can't be bothered to take a few seconds

to show a receipt and reduce theft and, of course, reduce the cost of merchandise for honest people. Because we all know how Walmart is going to make back the cost of stolen goods.

[krawhitham]

171. I always refuse to show my receipt at store

They always bitch and moan but I just keep walking. If might be different if they asked everyone instead of profiling people and only asking people the think look like thieves

[Warren DeMontague]

175. I wonder what the age and other demographics are of the people "outraged" by this practice.

If I had to guess, I'd say it skews heavily towards boomers-and-older, people who still pine for the days of the mom and pop store on Mulberry Street where friendly Mr. McFeely knew all his customers by name. Unfortunately, those days are gone, as are most mom and pop stores (thanks, Wal-Mart!) and the most of us under, say, 50 have gotten used to this reality.

Also I wonder if this isn't another example of Middlebrow American Bourgeois, ego inflated, self-centered entitlement;

like, "How dare you accuse ME, Lawrence Higgenbotham III esq., of being a common hoodlum- a petty thief- dare I say it, a street ruffian!!! Why, I never! Good day, sir!" :eyes:

Look, buddy, it's not personal. If it was your store, you'd want to make sure the guy leaving with the $1,000.00 tv had paid for it, too.

[Brigid]

176. Amen and amen.

You win this thread as far as I am concerned. :yourock:

[JoeyT]

178. I'm not exactly outraged.

But I generally get irritated by it. I've never managed to walk out of a store that checks receipts without someone demanding my receipt and wanting to check off every item in the bag. Course I'm late 20s, not white, and have visible tattoos.

And that's why they don't get to see my receipt anymore: because I'm sick of racists deciding I must have stolen *something* goddamnit, or I wouldn't look like I do.

[SDuderstadt]

180. Strike a blow against....

fascism, JT!

[Liquorice]

185. I get irritated by it too, and

I'm white with no tattoos and Gen X. I don't think it's racism, otherwise they wouldn't be checking me too. I never refuse to let them check, but it always feels kind of weird to have someone checking to make sure I didn't steal. It's just an uncomfortable situation no matter what. It's like, "Excuse me, please let me check your receipt to make sure you're not a thief! Thank you!" It sucks.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. Honestly, that's the one circumstance where I could understand people being pissed.

If it's not being applied equally, to everyone, if they're even giving the impression of just doing it to "suspicious" (wink wink) people- that's fucked up, and a different story entirely.

The situation I'm commenting on is a general store policy where everyone has to show their receipt on the way out of the store; that's what I do at Costco, and the receipt checkers are always really nice people.

But I look like a hippie, and in certain parts of this country (like the East Coast) I can't walk into certain stores -particularly if I haven't shaved in a few days- without being followed around and getting lots of aggressive-sounding "may I help you, sir?"

That's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about a general, universally applied policy that affects everyone equally. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but I was under the impression that that was the situation, here.

[Liquorice]

283. From my observation, Walmart does random checks like the TSA. I doubt

it's racial profiling because I get stopped and checked and I'm white.

Maybe Walmart should do random full-body patdowns like the TSA or they could position one of those nude search machines at the exit that you have to walk through to get out. That would probably save them some money.

[demwing]

181. It doesn't have to be personal for me to object - just wrong.

and I'm under 50.

I wonder if all this resentment directed toward those who object isn't just so much bluff and swagger contrived as a means of compensating for a lack of self esteem which comes from not having the courage to stand up for one's rights?

[SDuderstadt]

182. "lack of self-esteem"

Or, maybe it's because we realize the refusal is stupid and petty, since the imposition is negligible.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. It takes courage to stand in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square- not to be an asshole in Best Buy.

Believe me. I spent years working, among other things, behind the counter of a video store. I've been on the other side of that retail equation, and there is nothing "courageous" about the numbnuts who thinks he has found a line in the declaration of independence that says he doesn't have to pay a late fee on his DVD of "Navy Seals". :eyes:

There are no 'rights' in question here; there is a simple store policy aimed at reducing theft, which is a real problem. If people don't like the store's policy, they have the "right" to shop elsewhere.

[demwing]

207. So show your receipt.

Carry your documents. Justify your reason for being wherever you happen to be when you are questioned.

And keep on telling yourself that it doesn't matter, that courage is something that only happens under extraordinary circumstances, and therefore we shouldn't mind so much when our rights are eroded slowly over time. Like courage, abuse doesn't mean anything unless its a grand display...

[SDuderstadt]

208. "carry your documents"

Stupid "slippery slope" argument.

[SDuderstadt]

206. I don't know about age or other demographics, but...

I have always visualized them as Frank Burns from "M.A.S.H." or Cliff Claven from "Cheers"

[Gormy Cuss]

236. You're probably right about age, but not for the reasons you posit.

It's more like they remember when retailers (even the big ones like Sears and other department stores) catered to customers a bit more and didn't leave them with the feeling that they had to prove they weren't criminals at every turn, or that the retailer had the right to mine databases to build profiles even when the customer had no interest in the allegedly enhanced shopping experience.

The issue isn't the receipt check, it's the deception inherent in presenting it as mandatory rather than voluntary.

[BzaDem]

197. Walmart could easily force anyone who buys a product to agree to have their receipt checked as a

condition of buying the product. Don't want to agree? Then don't check out, and leave empty handed. Problem solved (to the extent there was ever a problem).

[Norrin Radd]

201. Fuck Walmart.

I hope they get shoplifted out of existence.

[MikeW]

203. perfect example of ....

A self important ASSHOLE in society today.

The manager should tell him never to come into the store anymore.

The Best Buy where I live asks all the time, I dont have a problem with it at all. They get picked all the time

because of all of the unchaperoned kids in the store on weekends.

If people didnt fking shoplift stores wouldnt have to have these policies.

[demwing]

209. Justification? If Mexicans didn't cross the border illegally

Arizona wouldn't have to question the nationality of people who look like they might be Mexican. Is that the logic you wanted to stand on?

[SDuderstadt]

210. Not even comparable n/t

[MikeW]

217. not even relevant to this discussion .. try another forum

[pokerfan]

218. Exactly!

Another example is the left-lane bandit, the asshole who blocks the left-most (passing) lane on the freeway because his speedo says he's going the speed limit.

[demwing]

211. Why does anyone else care if we object?

It's not like our objections create a line trying to get out of the damn Walmart. If you feel like showing your receipt, show it. Personally, I'll thank you! Because while your cart contents are being checked to make sure you didn't steal anything, the rest of us can walk out the door with the things we OWN and PAID FOR 30 seconds ago.

Your sacrifice serves us all. You will not be forgotten...

[SDuderstadt]

212. So, no one tries to exit without paying?

Sorry, it's the sanctimony that offends.

[themadstork]

222. Why so snippy?

You keep blowing your nose on this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

227. Gee, I don't know...

maybe it's the constant drumbeat of insinuations of "good German" or we're some sort of obedient government dues. What do you think?

[themadstork]

229. I'm not sure. nt

[fishwax]

304. good question n/t

[themadstork]

220. Sincerely surprised by how many liberals support this. I have no problem aligning with teabaggers

when they are right. The law says he doesn't have to show it, and the fact that he's an asshole doesn't change that. My personal complaint about his character should be irrelevant legally.

I generally show my receipt because I find it makes for a nice opprotunity to chitchat with the checker. Although, one time this lady went through my entire bag of extremely ordinary groceries, and somehow it ended with the conclusion that I had in fact bought yogurt. I'd have probably been irritated if she weren't so sweet; I believe we talked about her daughter.

The guy at Best Buy would always check my receipt even after very obviously watching me check out. He looked like an intensely bored man.

Also, re the "oh my gosh you're such an asshole for making this poor min-wage earner's life that much harder" responses: fuck that. Maybe his life does suck, but he also never asked for your coddling. If the guy's imposing on you, tell him. Or don't tell him. He doesn't care about your farts. You're not doing him a favor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

223. Why don't Walmart tape a copy of the receipt to the outside of the box?

That way, they could check it without bothering the customer. Or they could install one of those systems where they removed a RFID or similar before giving someone the box, so that they can check it remotely without any person being involved. You know, like sensible stores do.

[snot]

224. I believe Walmart's illegal detention constitutes the tort of "false imprisonment."

Although there were little or no monetary damages to the person detained, I wonder if punitive damages might be available, given that the detention was intentional and Walmart surely knows by now that such detentions are illegal.

If people video'd these incidents on their phones, a class action might be possible.

[Beaverhausen]

225. For a big item like this, they should just put a big sticker on it that says 'paid'

for god's sake- they do that with the big package of TP I buy at the grocery store. What is the big f'ing deal?

[madmom]

226. This has got to be the MOST ridiculous fucking thread I've ever read! Did I

accidentally go to freepville?:eyes:

[JeffersonChick]

228. And I thought it was just me!

Those receipt checkers have always pissed me off so much.

[Keith Bee]

232. Bweh?

:shrug:

[Krakowiak]

234. next time someone demands a "link" to back up some claim here on DU

I'm calling that person out for being what they truly are: A STINKIN' FASCIST!

My word isn't good enough for you?

[AC_Mem]

241. How hard is it

To tape a special colored tag on an oversized or expensive purchase? I mean, that is what they used to do.

They check the reciepts at Sam's Club, but it's a wholesale club and that is part of the rules. I paid my membership there and that is their policy so I don't have a problem with that.

[Evoman]

242. I don't understand why I'm an asshole for not showing receipts.

If anything, I'm making the workers life easier by not making him check my receipt. The whole issue is stupid...if you like getting your stuff checked, go ahead. By all means, chat with the guy. Stop and look for your receipt. Knock yourself out.

My preference is just to walk out. It's my right, and I'm not hurting anybody, because I paid for my stuff. The checker can't force me to stop, and if he does, I'm not the one making his life inconvenient or being the asshole, he is. Ignorance is never an excuse....especially if it results in using any sort of force to detain me.

I don't even care that much about "demonstrating principles". I don't think I'm a freedom fighter. I just know what it is right for me to do, and I do it. Seriously, if you have a problem with that, feel free to argue to my back while I walk away.


On edit: The more I think about it, the stupider this issue becomes. Thieves are not nearly as stupid as people think they are (at least not the professional kind). They know that Walmart isn't allowed to hold them without probable cause. So this just inconveniences(albeit ina very minor way) responsible customers and your occasional dumb kid thief.

[SDuderstadt]

245. Do you honestly think that...

if retailers did not check receipts, more people would not try to shoplift?

Asking to see a receipt is a minor and reasonable intrusion and not remotely intended as an insult.

[Evoman]

248. Would they?

I don't know...I doubt it stops that many thieves, not as much as cameras and LPOs. Besides that, it would only stop them if people are ignorant about the law. And, myself, I will never argue that ignorance of the law is a good thing (look at that, maybe it is about principles for me).

Reasonable intrusion, for you. Hell, if I were pushed enough, then maybe I would show the receipt because not showing it is more inconvenient at that point. I guess its a good thing no one ever pushes me. Lol...it would take a very special person to do that.

I most situations, it's a very bad idea to lay hands on me. Although, if it were and old person or a pretty girl, I'd probably be a tad more docile about it, lol.

[SDuderstadt]

270. It's showing a receipt....

I have never, ever had "hands laid on me".

I think retailers have a legitimate interest in reducing shrinkage, so I support reasonable policies. Emphasis on reasonable.

[Evoman]

289. Of course you haven't. Because you comply.

I think a big problem is with what people agree is reasonable. To some people, being stopped physically when you say no thank you is unreasonable, especially if they have their hands full. I guess you can disagree, but until you change the law, it's all moot anyways.

[SDuderstadt]

290. Of course it is....

especially if you only think of it from one dimension.

[Shandris]

250. Wait...people are actually sticking up for this guy?

WTF? He's no 'hero', he's a jackass trying to abuse a little-known law to make a point about...well who knows what the fuck he's making a point about.

The law was completely fine when 'store' was defined as 'one cashier with the owner behind it' or something very similar. It doesn't quite match up when you have multiple thousands of square feet and registers all the way at the back. This CONVENIENCE -- that he doesn't have to wait in a single clusterfuck line of 30,000 customers -- comes with the tacit understanding that he MAY, upon request, need to show that he did indeed pay for the item.

This has nothing to do with corporate masters, whether or not you like Wal-Mart or other large retailers, or ANYTHING of the sort. Anyone obtuse enough to claim that there is some 'principle' involved can feel positively free to go from shop to shop to shop (as many of us do) and purchase things from smaller retailers. But to claim that this man has a 'right' to just walk out of a place after taking advantage of the convenience tacitly offered him is both blind, and uneducated as to what the fuck a 'right' is.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

255. Many do, and the number is growing

[Shandris]

258. Many do...shop at smaller stores?

Or support him as a hero? Sorry, it could be read as either.

If you mean the former -- that many do shop at smaller stores and the number is growing -- I completely agree. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned -- I've no love for Wal-mart to be certain. That place can be downright evil, my ex-stepmother worked there for years and...well, let's just say the stories aren't exaggerated much if at all. My post has nothing to do with supporting large retail outlets.

[Evoman]

261. He's no hero. But he is a law abiding citizen.

He is not wrong here, no matter how smug he may appear. In fact, I didn't read in the account anything he did wrong...he wasn't even impolite.

[Shandris]

263. He is, technically, a law-abiding citizen, yes.

He even had a handy law to quote, even though any casual observance of it would render the same judgment I came to -- that that law is outdated (clearly), and hearkens back to a time when a person purchasing would be witnessed by the storeowner right in front of the door. In order to simulate that context in modern reality, you could have an amusement-park-length line leading to a single register right by the door and then the law would be perfectly applicable. I doubt anyone would, standing in that line, praise him for his thoughtful use of 'the law', though.

He wanted to make a point so he could write about it. The point he ended up making is that 'hey, you can troll wal-mart too!'.

[Evoman]

266. So....

The law should be changed so the store has a right to retain people until they show their receipt?

I mean, I want to know what your saying the end result should be.

[Shandris]

269. I think if I were writing the law, I would contend that the store should...

...have the right to retain a person until a receipt is shown, yes. The retention should be polite, as friendly as possible, and so forth (to the point of the store being subject to lawsuits if otherwise can be proven, I'm all for culpability), and should only be considered when the customer in question is utilizing a register that is far beyond the point the entry.

In practice, this almost never applies to anything beyond high-grade electronics, large box items, and appliances/car parts, and the entire situation could have been avoided merely by taping the receipt to the box. At that point, any person refusing to show their receipt has exhausted all good-faith defenses on ~why~ (unless, naturally, one can be offered).

Also in practice, any mall where you cannot show a receipt can detain you for theft pending investigation by security and, in cases where it appears theft has happened, it is then remanded to the police. I've been through such a situation (no, I wasn't the suspect!) before and was admittedly surprised by it. I can't say whether or not it was entirely legal, but I can say that it did happen. This is in Indiana, at least; your mileage may vary.

[Evoman]

274. I just can't help but think a law like that is ripe for abuse.

You know, I'd rather be in a position wher I'm paying high prices to compensate a store for theft, than have the chance of a misunderstanding happening that allows some corporation to detain me. What if I lost my reciept? What if I was rung in wrong? You see the problems with presuming guilt?

[Shandris]

276. It would have to be very carefully worded, there's no doubt about that.

And as you mentioned in our other subchain, store design could make it a moot point (as my law only involved cashier points far from an entry). I'm not very authoritarian by nature, but I was taking into account the societal good of preventing cost inflation via loss prevention. Removing that, I wouldn't be inclined to allow detention myself.

I'd even be in favor of putting the onus of receipt placement on the store.

However, even in your situation you describe, if nothing else the cameras would show you interacting with the cashier which would be enough to toss out the charge, even if it were rung up incorrectly ~and~ you lost your receipt. You know, for the sake of argument. :D

[Evoman]

279. Still not convinced.

It's too risky, even besides the slippery slope aspects of that type of law (corporate over-reaching, giving economics priority over personal freedoms, etc).

Still, it's nice to have an argument over something in GD without having my head torn off. Thank you for your civility.

[themadstork]

294. I don't understand what you mean

I also live in Indiana. What do you mean by any mall where you can't show a receipt? As I'm exiting the mall, or as I'm just sorta wandering around, or. . . ?

[Shandris]

350. Either, really.

Apparently, they have these cameras that stretch the length of the malls that can be viewed from the anchor stores. In the situation I described, a friend of mine and our SO's had congregated at the mall's center fountain for a couple of minutes (we had been at the mall each shopping separately for over an hour, it was our agreed-upon meeting spot naturally). Then my friend realized he had forgotten to buy cigarettes and he said he'd meet us in the car. Me, my SO, and his SO went out to the car to wait.

About 30 minutes later (and a goodly amount of detailed cursing lol) there's a knock on our window at the car. It's the mallcop, and he's asking us to come inside. Wouldn't say what happened to my friend, so we were concerned and went in with him. Cue the local policeman informing us that he 'knew' we had been part of a conspiracy to 'steal' cigarettes. Why was it a conspiracy? Because we had CLEARLY all gathered at the center of the mall and then proceeded outside to wait for our 'stolen' goods. My friend hadn't kept his receipt, he'd crumpled and tossed it in the trash. The cashier wasn't available to verify he'd purchased the item, and at this time the cigarettes weren't stored behind the counters yet (so yes, its been a few years). They also refused my friend the opportunity to go through the trash to find his thrown-away receipt, apparently fearing he would flee for his life or something. Not that he wanted to dig through trash, obviously, but these idiots were talking arrest.

As it unfolded, the cashier that checked my friend out was on lunch and the mallcop had already been watching us at the central fountain before we even split up because we 'looked like thieves', which I can only guess means that we were all under 21 during the daytime. Unfortunately, the very same mallcop wasn't smart enough to control the cameras viewing angle, and he didn't get to see my friend pay for his carton of cigarettes. He went to check with the cashier, unaware that the previous cashier had JUST GONE ON BREAK. So the current cashier informed him that no...she hadn't checked anyone out with cigarettes. So he asked my friend for the receipt, he didn't have it, and the mallcop 'invited' my friend to the office while he called the local police.

The cop interviewed us separately for some time, but came up with nothing, although he was adamant that no group of 4 people would EVER meet at the Central Fountain and talk for a few minutes before 3 went outside and the 4th went to 'steal' cigarettes without it being a conspiracy.

During that time the other cashier eventually returned from her break and verified that yes, he HAD paid for his cigarettes, we hadn't done a THING wrong, and they profusely apologized to us. We were pretty pissed off naturally...but what can ya do, right? I never spent my money in that mall again, though. To this day I refuse to step in there.

This would have been...say 15 years ago, I think? So maybe the law has changed, but I can't recall ever hearing anything about it. But they can detain you, as evidenced by the cop who showed up for the 'investigation'. It doesn't matter if you're going out the Exit doors, or the doorway that leads into the rest of the mall.

[truebrit71]

260. Yeah, why not just be good germans and do as we're told..

...:sarcasm:

[Evoman]

259. Well, I suppose if you have a problem with it, you can always try to have the law changed.

I enjoy not being inconvenienced.

And how do you raise awareness about a little known law except excercising it? Flyers? Is it better for people to be ignorant of the law? Is it your contention that a law should be ignored in certain situations, because it's a small infarction?

Not that I would disrespect you if you believed that. People have similar ideas about drug laws. Just making sure that that's what your saying.

[Shandris]

267. No, that's fair enough.

However, I would point out that enforcing this law would be much more inconveniencing than not. It does raise a larger question though...at what point is a transaction considered 'completed'? Is it purely the handing over of money? The acknowledgement of the bank when a debit card is processed?

Since he can shop from the back of the store while he moves forward, is the transaction not finished until he leaves the store? I don't know. Something to consider.

But changing the law would be a good idea. Or at least defining sold/transaction/what-have-you to a useful parameter.

Good point about drug laws, btw.

[Evoman]

271. I suppose they could stop having cashiers "in the back",

Design the store in a way the people who buy something have no choice but to leave through a certain set of doors. Or go the costco route and have a tacit agreeement to be checked before you leave. The problem is Walmart won't do that because it would cost money to renovate and they would lose customers who don't want to be inconvenienced. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. It's unfair to single out a man who follows the law because a store wants to save money by using ignorance of the law.

[Shandris]

275. Yeah, its one of those annoying cases where theory and practice collide...

...head on and no one really 'wins'.

I like your idea about the design of the store, and I've never been to a Costco. I don't think we have them in Indiana? Not sure.

The part of it that rubs me the wrong way is that -- while correct in legal terms -- the misuse of the intent of the law. This is the very same thing that lets Wall Street, Big Oil, and SO MANY other groups skate by cheating people, robbing people, even killing people by misusing the intent of a law and justifying it by the letter. Now clearly this guy isn't doing any of the above, but people who misuse the intent rub me the wrong way by default. I have a very tenacious 'intent' streak in me, it doesn't get mollified easily. :D

That's why I'm strongly adamant that he's not a 'hero' as others have called him (not you), even as I (reluctantly) admit that it was, technically, legal.

[Evoman]

278. Oh, I understand that.

The real world is messy. That's why we have laws in the first place. But we can't forget, in this case, that if the employee hadn't been ignorant of the law, the man would have walked out with his legal purchase, and no article would have been written.

The fucker is smug, I'll give you that. And I agree with you about Wall Street. But laws aren't easy to write, and there are always gonna be loopholes, and misuse. But in most cases, I always err on the side of the "weak party" i.e. the consumer, than the corp. And in this case, it isn't hard for me to see who's side I'm on.

[SDuderstadt]

282. The problem with the "store design" solution is that...

it totally ignores fire and safety codes.

[Evoman]

286. Well, the point is that there are ways of dealing with this.

I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of fire codes, but I'm sure there is a way to design a store that keeps everyone safe. There are solutions, SDuderstadt, that don't involve businesses breaking the law, even including changing the laws.

And like I said. If the store had followed the law, in the case, what would they have? A happy customer who legally bought his TV. An employee who did his job. If they have a reasonable cause to expect a crime has been commited, then by all means, stop him. Once people are educated about the law, this type of process is useless anyways. And if I hold any principle, it's that people should always be educated about the law.

[Evoman]

287. And even if they did stop criminals, without evidence of a crime, they can't do anything anyways.

The whole "prevention" aspect of this process is predicating on civilian ignorance of the law. Which is a terrible way to go about doing things.

[SDuderstadt]

281. Design the store in a way the people who buy something have no choice but to leave through a...

certain set of doors."

That would make sense if you didn't have to take fire and safety codes into account.

[themadstork]

295. I wouldn't be against changing the law,

but as it is I have a hard time getting angry at a guy who's insisting that the law be upheld. And generally I think insisting that the law be upheld is a decent enough principle, though it's not one I follow. At the very least it allows you to change the law once assholes like this abuse the letter of the law.

Though, in his defense, I believe the guy was carrying the TV out by hand, no? Guy had his hands full. At the very least in this case it was something of an inconvenience.

[Common Sense Party]

268. If you don't like the store policy, shop somewhere else.

This isn't that complicated.

[demwing]

273. What if the store policy was discriminatory?

What if they had a policy of checking receipts of African Americans, and not whites?

[Common Sense Party]

310. I still wouldn't shop there.

[fishwax]

305. I see it the other way -- if the store doesn't like the customer's policy, invite him not to return

[jmowreader]

284. I think this is a load of shit, personally

There is enough shrink in retail that a law allowing retailers to require receipts for purchases over, say, $250 be shown. Walmart stores tend to put full skids of televisions in the middle of the aisle so people can get them without having to track down an employee to get one out of the stockroom. It would be NO problem to steal one.

[Fumesucker]

285. But that's not the law *now*..

Which is the point of the exercise, Walmart has the right to request you show your receipt, you have the right to tell them no.

This whole thing is engendered to a big extent by Walmart having insufficient employees on the floor to properly help the customers, as you said, you have to "track down" a Walmart employee.

[Common Sense Party]

311. Since the receipt checkers are often elderly people, I enjoy having

a quick chat with them, share a smile or a laugh. Boosts me up and may make their shift a bit easier, who knows.

I have nothing to hide and could care less if a store needs to do this.

[DainBramaged]

291. Was it Charlie Sheen who bought the TeeVee? Wow DU has it's panties in a KNOT over this!

Maybe It was in an earthquake zone, or or in Wisconsin, or or who fucking cares USA....

[SDuderstadt]

292. Simple question:

For those of you who patronize membership/club-type stores that require receipt checks as a provision of membership, why do you submit to the contract provision? If you really had the strength of your convictions, wouldn't you sue, say, Costco, on the grounds that the show-receipt provision is an unacceptable abrogation of your rights? And, if you wouldn't or you simply submit to their requirement, however reluctantly, would you submit at other stores that posted notice of their policy in plain sight upon entry?

Why have a double standard?

[Common Sense Party]

327. "'Cause, like, I pay $18 bucks a year, man...so that gives Costco the

right to like, do whatever they want. But, since, like, I DON'T pay $18 bucks a year to shop at Wal-Mart, they have NO right to see my receipt, the fascist Nazi pigs!!! Don't you see the TOTAL difference, man? What are you, blind? Bow down to your corporate Bentonville overlords, then, you ignorant prole!"

[Owl]

293. Fer Chris-sakes, take 2 seconds to show a lousy receipt and get on with your life.

[zappaman]

296. Obviously, we are a facist country

as shown by the request to see a receipt as you exit a some stores.
:sarcasm:

[Common Sense Party]

313. Sometimes this place makes NO sense.

[XOKCowboy]

320. I hear ya...

The 75 year old man at WalMart asking so see if you actually bought the big screen you're carrying out is evidence of fascism in America?

Give me a freakin' break.

[Warren DeMontague]

336. For some reason, the image of full grown, middle aged men in diapers comes to mind.

It's like "Baby Huey Nation" around here, sometimes. :eyes:


http://78.136.27.54:8080/uploads/image_bank/Baby_Huey_Image_hl.jpg

[Beaverhausen]

321. the one and only time I was in a Wal-Mart there were 'issues' with this reciept crap

I was with a friend who moved to a small town in Arkansas to live for 3 months and she bought a whole bunch of stuff.

She and I were both carrying a bunch of large bags and the receipt was in one of them.

We had neither of us ever been in a wal-mart, let alone ever had to show our receipt when we left any store.

Suffice it to say, we were thoroughly embarrassed to have to be held there for about 20 minutes while we searched and searched all these bags to find the fucking receipt to satisfy the fucking nazi at the door.

I will never EVER set foot in a wal mart ever again. And yes, I know some people don't have a choice.



P.S. Put a PAID sticker on large items so the person carrying them doesn't have to fumble around for the receipt when they leave.



Or maybe hire more security?

[SDuderstadt]

322. "fucking Nazi"?

Really? The Nazis were a brutal, repressive regime that shipped people to death camps, then gassed and cremated them. I'm pretty sure that losing twenty minutes of your life looking for a receipt is not remotely comparable.

Thanks for helping DU more closely resemble the mirror image of FreeRepublic. Fucking unbelievable.

[Common Sense Party]

323. Hyperbole runs amok. Of course, it was no 20 minutes. It probably

took all of 60 seconds to produce a receipt. But I guess that's comparable to over 6 million people being murdered.

[pokerfan]

326. Around these parts

they hand you your receipt. I just keep it in my hand until I'm out of the store.

I feel so violated.

[LynneSin]

301. And then the guy proceeded to Olive Garden where he breast fed his pit bull at the table

:eyes:



Seriously, it's a damn receipt and I really don't give a rats ass if they want to see it. Not like I'm trying to hide a bag of porn I just purchased.

[Teaser]

303. Dude is being a dick

he has that right. But he's still a dick.

[demwing]

341. Why?

Standing up for your rights, at NO OTHER CUSTOMER's INCONVENIENCE is "being a dick"? Why do you care?

[fatbuckel]

317. Big deal. How about not buying from Walmart. A much bigger statement.

You showed them. Nothing like giving an evil corporation a wad of cash before you disobey one of their policies.

[Pryderi]

318. why is he shopping at Walmart? n/t

[demwing]

342. What does it matter?

Specific to this issue, what does it matter?

[Warren DeMontague]

319. More Middle Merkin Teabag Style Douchebaggery, imagining itself as a 'fight against tyranny'

Typical self-centered, entitled, ME ME ME! meaningless crappo.

[Common Sense Party]

325. Not necessarily Teabag douchebaggery, as evidenced by all the DU'ers

who think it's the worst example of fascism to ask to see a receipt.

[Warren DeMontague]

328. Teabag style, The same mentality that says minimum standards for car mileage

are the first step on the road to the concentration camp.

[JonLP24]

331. LOL

I'm glad I never been asked to show a receipt. Hell when I buy a bus card at Fry's from the Customer Service area, there is a trash can right next to it that I always throw the receipt away in, before I exit the store.

I had no idea stores did this.

[MadBadger]

345. I once bought six bags of flavored water at Wal Mart, was made to show receipt

Stuck my receipt in a bag and was none too happy to be told to root around for it.

[mia]

348. "Calm" passive-aggressives are the worst kind.

Tony is a classic passive-aggressive and doesn't care how many people are inconvenienced by his tactics. I'm glad that receipts are asked for. Knowing that they are, I always have mine ready.

[NeedleCast]

349. Most stores near me in both VA and MD have figured this one out by now

For large/bulk/expensive items they either have alarm scanners at the door or put a sticker/colored tape on any items that will not be bagged. I bought a 20oz bottle of Coke at my grocery store this weekend and asked that it not be bagged. The checker said "can I put a sticker on there?" I said sure. Problem solved. The door checker can tell an unbagged item has been paid for. Why Wal-Mart chooses to put themselves in an untenable legal situation is silly. They have both the resources and manpower to make situations like this totally unnecessary. So yeah, I'm with Mr. Calm Guy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

370. I have seen that sticker approach used at some WalMarts