"Wal-Mart is Your God Now"-WM Goes Crazy on (Innocent) Couple Accused of Shoplifting

[XanaDUer]

http://consumerist.com/5399061/walmart-goes-crazy-on-co...

SNIP:Walmart can try to spin itself as being on the side of good all it wants, but if it ever suspects you of shoplifting, you may find that you're powerless to fight back. In the case of a couple accused of shoplifting some Bic lighters in Niles, Michigan this past August, Walmart detained them, the police came and cuffed one of them, their two kids were taken to a security room, and—after a review of security footage proved the couple's innocence—they were banned for life from all Walmarts. To top it off, Walmart's legal team has sent the couple a letter asking to be reimbursed for 10 times the value of the lighters, even though the police determined no shoplifting had taken place.

Fortunately, the men seem to have enough money that they can afford to never shop at the discount retailer again, even if they weren't banned for life. If you're not part of a wealthy two-income family, though... well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team's authority.

[XanaDUer]

1. Did someone vote to unrecommend this thread?

Is that what the chevron in front of the 0 means?



Now it's gone...

[hvn_nbr_2]

46. Someone always does.

First, that "chevron" is the math sign for "less than." So "<0" means "less than zero."

Unrecs always come first. Apparently (my theory only) the paid trolls are the ones who have time to follow the "newest posts" 24/7 to get in their unrecs before normal people have time to even see them.

[tblue]

2. Was this a gay couple? nt

[XanaDUer]

5. Yes.

Nt.

[Divine Discontent]

41. seriously? oh boy... now that's some h8 going on since they didn't steal. there's always a reason

why shit like this happens when you hear it. So, THAT's the reason for this bullshit by wally world. This makes me very happy that I have taken away 90% of my $ from them. In extreme cases I run in there when I need an item that I cannot find anywhere late at night. Otherwise, about 200 a month is not being spent in there by me, and I'm sure others are doing the same.

[NBachers]

85. Never been in a WalMart

I may live the rest of my life and never go in one.

[AzNick]

99. They spotted them on the monitors

Some gay hating douches decided to give these "homos" a lesson.

That's how I see it.

It's harassment and waste of police resource.

It should be investigated.

[FreeState]

113. Homophobic comments to their kids too (link) - the kids are terrified/post-traumatic stress disorder

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/07/16449

The two said they expected an apology and were surprised once again when personnel from the store walked up to the squad cars with the twins and read from a statement that Paolucci and Hitchcock had been banned by the store chain for life. Rather than shoplifting, the reason they were given was “being uncooperative.”

By the time they were read the statement, Paolucci and Hitchcock said, the twins had told them that the security staff had allegedly threatened them in the security room and had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock’s lifestyle. Paolucci and Hitchcock said they asked police to take statements from the boys but the officers refused, telling the couple they’d have to contact Child Protective Services.

Paolucci said the boys have suffered a type of post-traumatic stress disorder since the experience. Both wet their beds, although one has stopped, and both have had nightmares about one security employee in particular, he said.

“They’re terrified, horrified. We’ve had to change their medication twice,” he said.

[Barack_America]

8. My thoughts too. This was not about a lighter.

This was about a family headed by gay parents.

[rucky]

3. whoops reply in the wrong place

[AllentownJake]

4. Sue them

Simple solution.

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. For a LOT

That is probably why Wal Mart is continuing to take a hard ass approach with them for no reason.

Because they suspect a lawsuit is about to hit them.

[Tesha]

53. Precisely.

The injured parties appear to have been the shoppers, not the corporation.

Tesha

[donco6]

6. I already boycott them.

Just another reason.

[StarfarerBill]

24. Ditto.

For fifteen years now, myself.

[Rectangle]

60. No problem!!

[PreacherCasey]

67. Same here. I wouldn't shop there if their receipts were printed on $100 bills. nt

[donco6]

69. LOL!

That's a good one.

[HisTomness]

94. I just steal from them

I've got a lifetime supply of cheap, shitty lighters.

[donco6]

96. LOL!

That will probably poison you in the end. Considering everything from Wal Mart comes straight from China.

[Ishoutandscream2]

120. LOL! Just woke the family up

Funny as hell. Thanks!

[Canuckistanian]

7. Banned for life from Walmart?

Not such a bad thing, although I can't imagine how they could enforce it.

I doubt whether they'd even go near a Walmart after treatment like that. And I sincerely hope their friends and relatives do the same.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Agreed!

How in the world could a "lifetime" ban ever be enforced?

Also, if these guys were smart they would get a frickin' lawyer.

[ooglymoogly]

68. They should shop this to some of the bigshot attorneys

who love this kind of case and are not afraid of bullies like Wall Shart. A really good attorney who doesn't lose should be able to make a civil rights issue and take the case and be paid only if they win in which case they would get 30% plus expenses. If they win this, it seems to me, there should be a pretty hefty payout at Wall Sharts expense and that would be a joy to behold.

[Fla Dem]

16. +1 forever

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. OMG. Thanks for posting this.

[XanaDUer]

10. You're welcome

I was shocked that the first response to it was an anonymous unrecommend, though. Weird.

[Tesha]

55. There seem to be a number of DUers who unrecommend *EVERYTHING* always.

Perhaps it's their idiotic protest against the presence of the "unrecommend" feature?

Tesha

[Liberal_in_LA]

102. yep n/t

[tavalon]

119. My husband and me are against the unrec feature

but the way we protest is by never using it.

[uncle ray]

13. sounds like a self-checkout situation.

they said they scanned the package but it failed to read.

too bad the self-checkout lovers earlier this week will miss this story. not only does their favorite retailer screw you by not having enough checkers and instead encouraging you to check yourself out at a clumsy machine, they hold you responsible for many times over the amount of any error you may have made using that machine.

[XanaDUer]

14. I never use self-checkout

I just don't like it; here is another reason not to. I also don't shop at Hell-Mart, but I can see why cash-strapped folks need to.

[unapatriciated]

26. I hate self check outs.

In my opinion it is a tool to put people out of work, just to maximize profits. They usually have one employee who is we responsible for three to four check-out lanes.
I refuse to use them and always let management know why.
btw I worked as a grocery clerk in one of the busiest stores in California so am capable of checking my own groceries. I just am not willing to put my fellow man out of work by doing so.

[WinkyDink]

43. It is EXACTLY that: a tool to reduce the work-force. And TPTB get FELLOW CITIZENS to APPROVE.

[corkhead]

81. These machines also distract you from seeing whether you are being charged correctly

Because you're busy scanning and bagging yourself.

I have banned myself from Walmart for quite some time now.

[rhiannon55]

122. Me too. And I banned myself for LIFE

About 10 years ago. Hate hate hate the place.

[donco6]

29. I almost always refuse to use them.

If I have one item . . . maybe. Even then I hate it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

128. I use self-checkout.....

....and don't set foot in Wal-Mart. But I'll leave you to your parade of assumptions.

[rd_kent]

15. Last time I checked, store employees CANNOT put hands on a customer...

or detain them involuntarily. Why did they agree to that? Why would anyone?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Actually they can...its called Shopkeepers Privilege in English common law

It allows the store to detain for a reasonable period of time some one suspected of shoplifting. Rules vary from state to state. In CA they can not threaten you, search you, or force you into the back room, though they will certainly try. They can not restrain you unless you are trying to get away. Check the rules in your state for specifics.

Were I so accosted in CA I would wait for up to 15 minutes for the police. I would not leave the area where I was accosted and refuse to go to a back room or non public area. I would not allow my property or person to be searched. I would not provide an ID. I would be as loud and as obnoxious as I could. I would use my cell phone to tell others what was happening.

[rd_kent]

22. I once helped a guy who was being assaulted by Target "theft prevention" officers.

They tackled him by the front door after he refused to empty his pockets. I pulled one of the "theft prevention" officers off of him and told him to call the cops but he was not to physically restrain him. The other "theft prevention" officer released the guy and he stood there and said "yes call the cops. I want to report an assault". I left soon after, not sure how it turned out. This was in Washington.....

[Taverner]

33. This is true, however having been busted for shoplifing as a teen in 86

Most security guards, who are off duty police officers, don't give a rats ass. I managed to "fall down the stairs" a few times before going into the back room - if you know what I mean...

[Milspec]

54. You would probably get shot here in OK

After living 30+ years in CA, I was shocked to see armed guards in the supermarket (even in nice areas) here in Tulsa. Every rent-A-cop has a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. There is armed private secuirty in CA as well, banks etc, but its not nearly so prevelant

In my dust up the kid was not yet 21 and an off duty cop would not have made either the error in judgment he did nor the tactical mistake which allowed me to disarm and drop him to the ground.

[hippywife]

117. No shit.

Even in the Reasors grocery stores. Real cops on duty with guns. My sister saw this in Ecuador several years ago. Army personnel guarding the stores. Sad enough that it happens anywhere, protecting the wealthy who can afford to purchase what they like from the people who need and can't, I never thought to see it here, too.

I'm a transplant to OK, too. I feel your pain. It's like a whole 'nother world and not in a good way.

[NYC Liberal]

62. Wrong. They can if they witness someone shoplifting.

I worked at a high-profile store here in midtown New York. We had plainclothes security and every day we would have people try to shoplift. They were detained and kept in a room that we had until the police came (which did not take long as there were always lots of cops in the area) to arrest them.

I'm not saying that in THIS what Wal-Mart did was right (it wasn't), but you most certainly can be detained by private security if they actually see you doing something.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I was involved in a dust up with a WalMart security guy outside a store

I got an apology and private thanks for not having the guy arrested. That doesn't mean I support WalMart, just that not all cases end up with people being banned.

I am pretty knowledgeable about shopkeepers privilege or equivalent in the states where I have lived. Its a lot more limited that many realize. In CA, you do not have to go to their back room, you don't even have to identify yourself. If the cops do not show up in a reasonable time, you can leave. Bag search is muddier, but I have been known to refuse that as well under certain circumstances.

Everyone should know and under the rules for the state they live in and not allow wannabe cops abuse them.

[arcadian]

20. Was it the Wal-Mart in Honolulu?

The one where they plowed over ancient grave sites? Yeah, Wal-Mart's a real peach.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. No, backwoods Arkansas

[rd_kent]

23. Has there been resolution on whether a store can search your bags after you have already paid?

There were some incidents a while back, at Best Buy, where customers were not allowed to leave after purchasing before showing the receipt to the guy at the door. The argument was that the transaction had already taken place and the store had no right to inspect personal property.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. If its the case I am thinking of, the bubba also blew off a cop, and was arrested

If he had behaved with the cop, who was doing a Tilly stop, he would have been clean. I do not think searching your bags while leaving has been resolved.

I try not to be an ass about it, but if there is a backup of people, being checked and I just have toothpaste, I will walk around it. Sometimes something gets said, but mostly it is ignored. I have had a few people in line grumble, but I point out that they don't have to wait either.

[rd_kent]

76. Costco is the place that pisses me off the most with this....

I hate having to wait 5 more minutes for some jerk to look at my 2 foot long receipt and a pile of shit in my cart and decide I have not stolen anything. What is the point of doing that? There is no way they can tell if all the items on my receipt match what is in my cart. If there is any back up there at all, I go right past.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Difference is that you signed up to the exit search as a condition of joining

So there is just grin and bear it

[RagAss]

19. How can they ban you for life at Wak-Mart?

The freakshow that it is...these folks can dress up in a myriad of costumes and never be recognized !

[arcadian]

21. I'll bet they could return tothat same Wal-Mart a week later

and nobody would even remember them, not that they would want to.

[XanaDUer]

28. Go to the page peopleofwalmart.com

for some interesting costumes in Hell-Mart.

[unapatriciated]

25. When it comes to suspected shoplifting you are guilty even when proven innocent at Wally World.

Wal-mart is Judge, Jury and sometimes Executioner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/another-shoplif...

Never shopped there and never will.

[Generic Other]

27. Anyone enabling this evil company by shopping here makes me sick

no excuses. boycott the fuckers. or bear responsibility for their crimes.

[whopis01]

30. Typical Walmart gay bashing n/t

[donco6]

39. How so? n/t

[whopis01]

121. The staff targeted and abused these men because they are gay

From the article:

The couple in question is gay and their sons are adopted, which may have introduced a whole new level of emotional reactions on both sides of the dispute. The men say their children told them that while they were being held in the security room, the security staff threatened the kids and "had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock's lifestyle."


Wal-Mart has a history of being anti-gay.

Back in April, the CEO signed a petition to ban adoption and foster case by gay couples:
http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2009/04/ceo-of-wa...

They have long refused to give benefits to partners of gay employees:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2007-11...

They give in to conservative religious groups' demands about gay rights groups
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/22/magazines/fortune/plugg...

This is just another example of their corporate culture.

[Kievan Rus]

34. WalMart = the Evil Empire

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. video proves them innocent and mal-wart still does this??

disgusting.

[Nevernose]

36. In Las Vegas, between 25% and 35% of all shoplifting occurs at Wal-Mart

To be more technically accurate, that should be between 25% and 35% of all shoplifting citations are issued at Wal mart, but I refuse to believe that Wal Mart has any better security than any other similar business. I suspect the rates are higher in locales with fewer businesses and Wal Mart is the commercial center.

Once upon a time ago I processed misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor citations for Clark County, and out of curiosity I started comparing locations of victims. Stealing is wrong, even from Wal Mart, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over the Wal mart crime wave.

[B3Nut]

37. Wal-Mart is one of the strongest arguments in favor of

the elimination of corporate personhood, the revocation of corporate charters for corporations which cease to serve the public good, and forbidding corporations from making campaign contributions. Fat chance of THAT ever happening, though...no congresscritter, D or R, is really going to kill the goose that laid their golden egg.

I avoid Mall-Wart like the plague...I haven't even set foot in Sams ever since Madison got a Costco, if I need bulk something or a cheap car battery I go there. The store is actually pleasant, not a depressing shithole like every Wal-Mart I've ever been in was.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Swede Atlanta]

38. Another reason to avoid them..........

I never shop at Walmart or Sam's Club. There is a Sam's Club about 1/2 mile from me but I belong to Costco even though it is more than a 10 miles drive.

Wal Mart is so big they think they are a world, and law, unto themselves. They may have a higher percentage of theft than some of their more upscale competitors such as Target but that doesn't excuse this type of behavior.

The only way Wal Mart could prevail would be to bring a civil case in court. They are probably banking on the couple just agreeing to pay the extortion money to avoid the possibility of having to hire an attorney to defend the charges. Me thinks Wal Mart knows they have no case and since both sides pay their own legal fees it is far too expensive for Wally World to pursue this. Even if they won all they could get would be the value of the allegedly pilfered lighters.

This is also the company that stands behind its policy that penalizes employees for calling in sick. Not only do they get demerits, the first day out ill must be taken either as vacation, personal day or unpaid. Their sick pay doesn't start until day 2 although you can't be out more than 3 days.

This is just great as we face a pandemic of Swine Flu. Let's face it most of their front line employees are unlikely to be able to afford to take a day off without pay. So they expose other employees and their customers to the flu and other illnesses.

I wouldn't cry one tear if Wally World disappeared one day. Small town America (and the world) would rejoice that the evil puss filled boil has been lanced.

[Stumbler]

40. Why am I not surprised?

As with many other respondents, I too have a personal boycott of that establishment. It seems obvious to me that the "value" of those low prices cannot offset their dismal treatment of employees, their bashing of unions, the wiping out of main street businesses across the country who can't compete on the unbalanced playing field, and their being a prime element in the rise of China's economic power at the expense of American manufacturing jobs. It's probably an extreme view, but I can't help but think of walmart, sams club and their customers as being unpatriotic. You may be buying an American flag, but it was still built in China.

[Guilded Lilly]

42. I'm a Target Tart, myself

pronounced Tarjhayyyyy of course. We elitists must have our accompanying accents

[beac]

45. I won't shop at Wal-Mart (zillions of reasons) OR Target (Target allows its

pharmacists to refuse to dispense 'Plan B').

In my opinion, Target is actually worse b/c somehow they've managed to keep this fact from being widely known. You'd have to live in a cave not to know Wal-Mart was evil.

[winyanstaz]

52. I dont shop wallmart...even though my budget could use some lower prices....

I just feel they have harmed my community too much.
I also don't shop at Fred Meyers ever since I found out that they refuse to give the pulled food to the local food banks. They let it rot in their garbage cans rather then help the poor.
Managers at a meeting were overheard saying it was "Because we want to leave the produce on the shop shelves as long as possible,(meaning almost too rotten for their paying customers to eat) before they "pull" it...because..some employees MIGHT pull the food too soon if they knew it would help people."
They do keep a can by the door sometimes during holidays for shoppers to donate to the food banks. However, even though they get a big tax write off for the spoiled food? They cannot be bothered to get it to the food banks or let it be picked up.
The SUPERVISOR of all the jewelry departments in the Snohomish area at Fred Meyers in Everett WA was also overheard calling her fellow co-workers "a bunch of trailor trash...trying to sell things to other trailor trash." so I say..to hell with you Fred Meyer and Wallmart.
Thanks for the info about Target.

[Fire1]

74. Budget? I'll shop at a dollar store before I go to Walmart. n/t

[pundaint]

114. I like Target better, but in New England

They have some guy planning their stores to be as remote from parking as possible in most locations.

[Jkid]

44. Banned for Life?

What if Wal-Mart was their only shopping place? And the next shopping place they can go to is a long way from home? Many miles away!?

[lollybaby]

47. DUers - Let's stop for a second and re-examine this story...

Let me state for the record that I am not a fan of Walmart! But people please, where is the other side of this story! All I have read is a perspective from the alleged shoplifters and DUers know that one side's perspective on anything is always accurate!
Here are some questions I will like answers to:
1. Where is the Police report on this incident.
2. What exactly were they accused of shoplifting.
3. Why did this couple provide Walmart with their personal information if no theft happened.
4. Why did this couple wait until a Restitution letter was sent before going public.
5. Why would any Lawyer advice this couple to drop a law suite "because Walmart will fight the case!"
6. The story about the security video does not sound quite right! (No Retailer will review video with a suspected shoplifter and share that information at the point of detention for obvious legal issues. This video is usually reserved for the DA and a Judge during trial.)

I am curious because I am in this business at a very high level (Organized Retail Crime and all) and will find it difficult to accept this story as presented on this thread and the associated link. This is because even if the security personnel at the store have acted unprofessionally and have made a bad call, the Restitution letter usually is generated by Lawyers who will have independently re-examined this incident which generally includes review of Police reports, Internal Apprehension reports, witness statements, any signed statements by the alleged shoplifter(s) and available video recording before mailing out a notice of civil demand based on the personal information "voluntarily" provided by the alleged shoplifter(s) at the time of the incident.

I think DUers should take a minute and catch their breaths collectively before taking a side even if it is against an entity we do not approve of. I am just saying...

[FarLeftFist]

50. Here's my guesses:

1-Probably not released to the public at this time because of no demand from the press. Small town politics and no MSM.
2-It states they were accused of stealing Bic lighters, apparently 10 of them. Weird.
3-Probably slightly intimidated and just handed over a driver's license.
4-Because at first it just seemed like a silly slap on the wrist and more of a nuisance or embarrassment, but the restitution letter gave them something valid.
5-Sometimes you just know when to let things go before it becomes a major headache.
6-i think it stated that the video was reviewed by the police and security, not necessarily the shoplifters. Before the police arrested 2 men and had to make arrangements for the children, they probably felt it was necessary to at least review the tape. It's a small town, sometimes these things get settled out of court.
7-Because they're gay and probably being discriminated against.

This isn't a MSM story, so we may never get the full details.

[lollybaby]

59. Thanks for your attempt at filing in the blank...

This is the kind of discuss I come to DU for over the years, not the knee-jack reaction that dominated this thread. DUers examine the story not blindly buy into the story that is what DUers decry about the Becks, Hannities and Ann Coulters of the world. We should try and get all sides of a story as possible so we can keep making a difference!

[FarLeftFist]

71. I come here because this site and most of the bloggers here do more fact-checking than the MSM

As Left-wing bloggers were used to being the one's who dig deeper for the answers, esp. the entire last decade. Were damn-near experts at uncovering the truth. Sometimes it still feels strange being on the defensive after years of playing offense.

[Piewhacket]

51. Civilian or LEO?

Your description of your duties implies civilian.

I'm not challenging your expertise, but it seems ludicrous to spend $300 in subordinate
prep time then $300 in lawyer time reviewing, just for a minor shoplifting matter of
$50 or less (bic lighters), even if the demand is for 10x ( <$500 ).

Isn't it overwhelmingly more likely that the demand letter was just automatically sent
WITHOUT meaningful review?

Because it appears this detention may have due to negligence of the retailer
(malfunction of the scanner). An arrest was apparently made for creating a disturbance.

[beac]

57. Many, but not all, of your ?'s are answered in the original story (linked from the link in the OP)

http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20091102/NEWS01...

[lollybaby]

65. Thanks for the link but again review police report...

It stated the subject was seen scanning the two items, that report does not say shoplifting did not take place. From my experience, the act of seemingly scanning an item is not always equal to paying for the item. Individuals have been known to act like they are scanning the items only to pass these items off without paying for them. The proof for this incident is right there before everyone involved, the Sales receipt! Were these items on the Sales receipt or not? How many were scanned and how many were not? It is strange that two attorneys are deciding not to take on a false detention law suite! I am sure there are other Lawyers eager to assist with taking a bite out of low hanging fruits like this one is been painted to be.
I just have a problem with people who think everyone they encountered during this incident had something against them, from the store employees, Police to the DA, I am just saying...

[Piewhacket]

77. What "police report"? I saw only an article.

What fool believes police reports, anyway?
They are nearly almost entirely into CYA for the police.

I'm dismayed, nay shocked that any DUer would be
so naieve to accept such at face value.


IN THIS CASE

We were told that the DA declined prosecution
because there was "nothing wrong on either side" (criminal).
Thats WAY more than "I'm too busy to prosecute", its
basically "I don't have PROBABLE CAUSE" for shoplifting
on one side or criminal assault and false imprisonment
on the other...

The issue for the shopkeeper is whether there is
probable cause to believe someone is shoplifting.
The shopkeeper is given more leeway than the rest of us,
to get it wrong, but NOBODY is going to think kindly when
they get it really wrong. They better get it right.

Apparently WalMart is demanding approx $150, which will not be
paid in this case. If it goes to suit amd makes it to a jury,
WallMart will be F*&^ed.

That's why, right or wrong, whatever it costs, WM will fight like hell.
Anyone going against that must weight that against what is to be gained.

As for the public, I have no quarrel with those who think
Walmart getting it wrong, legal or not, is enough to boycott the store.

[GrantDem]

48. I haven't been in a Wal-Mart in over eight years.

It seems that each day I find another reason not to and never a reason to reconsider.

[XanaDUer]

49. Kick.

Nt.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

56. It appears Wal-Mart just banned two attorneys for "being uncooperative."

I have a feeling they're about to find out just how uncooperative two attorneys really can be.

Here's a much more comprehensive article regarding what occurred. It's actually worse than what the OP's article says.

Detention room

Paolucci said that while he and Hitchcock were attempting to calm down the boys, the employees ordered them to enter a "detention room" for questioning. Fearful of what might happen behind closed doors, he and Hitchcock refused to enter and asked to speak to a manager.

"Some guy came up and said, 'I'm the manager,' then turned around and left," Hitchcock said.

Paolucci said he and Hitchcock then asked store personnel to call police. Within minutes, deputies from the Berrien County Sheriff's Department's Niles Township Patrol arrived, pleasing Paolucci who said he thought a few questions and a review of the store's videotapes and computer records would quickly resolve the matter.

He said he was shocked when he was immediately handcuffed, without a question being asked, and placed in the back seat of a squad car. Hitchcock wasn't handcuffed but also was placed in the back seat of a second squad car.

The twins, despite the protests of Paolucci and Hitchcock, were turned over to the store's security personnel, who took them into the "detention room" or what police referred to as a security room.

Cleared by the tape

Paolucci and Hitchcock estimated it was at least 45 minutes before officers told them they had reviewed the store's tapes and had determined that the lighters hadn't been shoplifted. The two said they expected an apology and were surprised once again when personnel from the store walked up to the squad cars with the twins and read from a statement that Paolucci and Hitchcock had been banned by the store chain for life. Rather than shoplifting, the reason they were given was "being uncooperative."

"Everything they asked us to do, we did. We cooperated 100 percent," Paolucci argued. "We objected only when they tried to get us to go into the detention room."

Read more: http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20091102/News01...

[MindPilot]

66. The troglodytes at Wally-World fucked with a couple of gay lawyers

and their special-needs adopted Romanian children?!

I would cut my dick off with a can opener to get on that jury! The best writers in the world couldn't come up with shit that good.

[defendandprotect]

70. Even worse . . . thank you!! ... Meanwhile, I wonder if this might attract enough attention . . .

that other homosexuals might come to see that they too had been harassed as shoplifters?

Perhaps this is just a highly unusual case -- maybe not????

[Christa]

58. I feel like going to WM

and steal a couple of Bic lighters just for the hell of it.

[Cha]

61. Did that couple a favor..I stopped shopping

at the bush infested place years ago when I found out how much money they donated to the idiot.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

63. Never cooprate with ANY private security for ANY reason

In wrongful detention situations "cooperation is consent" and greatly diminishes the recourse available to you. If confronted by private security, tell them to go sodomize a family member of their choosing and leave their property immediately.

[defendandprotect]

73. I think it would be very threatening to be ordered to a back detention room . . .!!???

Where did they get that idea from?

But . . . . if anyone, after purchase, asked to inspect my bags -- I'd take them immediately
back to the counter and start returning everything I'd bought.

[pundaint]

115. I have done that more than once

CompUSA, and Best Buy to name two

[ooglymoogly]

64. This is not a difficult store to boycott.

though there are times when you must. The mega stores with a grocery dept are a joke with a few come on bargains and the vast majority of the stuff is, at least in my town, more than the popular super market which is just down the street. Deal with these corpo fascists when you must, otherwise stay away. Its a 10 mile trip for me round trip and that is a half gallon of gas and a waste of my time. Those half gallons add up fast if you shop there a lot as I used to, but no more; Now I am able to send more to the folks in congress that have proven their loyalty like Grayson and Wiener.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. Wal-Mart can try all it wants to overcome its evilness..but will never succeed..

Its very soul is evil..

[CoffeeCat]

75. This is so brazen and wrong.

So, the PROOF exists that these men did not steal the lighters. However, Walmart STILL bans them
for life and STILL sends them a letter asking to be reimbursed for what they didn't steal...plus
extra money?

That letter is proof of harassment and wrongful prosecution.

Why in the hell would Walmart be so stupid?

They're asking to be sued, and I hope these people take Walmart to the cleaners. You
don't humiliate people like that. You don't detain their children. You don't find
out that you've accused innocent people--then turn around and demand money.

This really doesn't make sense.

Sue these bastards. Sue the pants off of them.

Who cares how hard they fight. Sue them for court costs too.

[CoffeeCat]

78. And...AHEM...no one is mentioning the self scanners!

In order to cut costs and increase their billions in profits--Walmart has self scanners in many
of the checkouts. It's a cheap way for Walmart to cut down on employees and it saves them money
on labor--let the customers check themselves out.

Well, not all of us are professional scanner users! Mistakes are bound to happen. So whenever a customer
makes a mistake on a piece of high-tech equipment--they're going to be arrested and fined--even when they
didn't steal? Really.

This whole thing is Walmart's FAULT. The article mentions that the customers scanned the lighters, but they
didn't register on the reciept. So, these guys were in self checkout.

Well, Walmart--if you weren't do damn greedy in the first place--maybe this wouldn't have happened.

SUE THESE BASTARDS!!! No case is slam dunk but some savvy attorney will point out that Walmart's attempts
to save money on these self check-outs is a large part of the problem! And these people are innocent
and the videotape proves it. TAKE THESE JERKS TO THE CLEANERS!

[McCamy Taylor]

79. Target needs to offer them a gift card.

Would be great pr.

[Skip Intro]

dupe

[Skip Intro]

80. Hate to play devil's advocate, but there are always two sides to a conflict. There was a receipt.

It showed no lighters.

From the original article, the one on which the op link is based:

------------------------
As for the shoplifting accusation, a copy of the police report obtained by The Tribune under the Freedom of Information Act stated that video surveillance clearly showed Paolucci scanning both packages of lighters.

"It is unknown at this time why the self checkout scanner did not pick up the items scanned by Paolucci," the report said.

The report also stated that when officers arrived at the store, they found Paolucci and Hitchcock "causing a scene, being very loud and disrupting customers while yelling and swearing at Wal-Mart security." Later in the report, when a Wal-Mart employee was asked if the boys had been threatened, she denied it but did agree they were told that "if ... (they) did not be quiet, they would sit in the (squad) car with (the) deputy."
------------------------
http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20091102/NEWS01...

The WM employees asked if they had the lighters, then asked for a receipt. The receipt didn't show the lighters. I think that is a pretty vital factor in trying to form an opinion on what took place.

[Piewhacket]

84. Your facts are only grounds for asking them to pay or return the lighters.

No item on the reciept. Just pay or leave the item.
What is wrong with that approach, especially when
WallMart provides scanners from the LOWEST BIDDER.

In other words, failure of the scanner to register the
purchase is not probable cause to believe someone is
shoplifting.

Actually, I'll bet wall mart TRAINED those employees
to just react like that. Oh, Oh. I smell a trace of
blood in the water.

Hey.

[Skip Intro]

87. They're not "my" facts, they're the facts. I'm just saying there are two sides, and the op presents

only one.

I'll reserve judgment until I have a better understanding of what actually happened.

[lollybaby]

91. I am not here to defend Walmart but your assumptions leave...

no room for the many instances of retail theft based on scams involving Self checkout registers. Scanners do not fail to register an item, you don't scan the item properly or your intentions are to avoid capturing that scan. Besides you will realize after the first item did not scan that the second item also did not show up on the screen. Usually most of us contact an employee to assist with the process. And your assertion early that the DA could not establish probable cause on either side is not correct. First, it is not the DA's job to determine probable cause, this is the role of a judge.
And the article indicated the DA did find any criminal wrong doing on the part of the police and store employees on accusations made by the couple. This had nothing to do with the shoplifting accusation. I am just saying...

[RobinA]

111. Very Few Stores

will tell someone caught with unpaid for merchandise to pay for it and let it go at that. Merchandise leaving the store without a receipt equals shoplifting in retail world. End of story. At self-checkout, you better damn well make sure everything scans.

[Skip Intro]

97. Snip I meant to include... Customer was leaving store with items not paid for, not on receipt.

"They asked if I had Bic lighters. I said, 'Yes,' and handed them over," Paolucci said. "Then they asked if I had a receipt. I said, 'Yes, you're holding it.' Then this group of Wal-Mart employees started forming around us."
----------------

My point is that if the receipt showed the lighters, there would have been no problem. The fact that it didn't, and that the customer was in possession of items not on the receipt, offers a completely different perspective than most have chosen to entertain in this thread. The customer was indeed leaving the store with items he had not paid for. This is a fact one would not know if relying only on the OP for pertinent info.

[jeff47]

101. If that were the case, then the DA would have plenty of evidence

But the DA said there's no evidence.

[Skip Intro]

106. It seems clear that the items did not scan, for whatever reason, therefore were not on the receipt.

So it follows that the customer, weather purposely or accidentally, was trying to leave with items not paid for and not on the receipt. That much seems clear.

If indeed, as it appears, the employees were trying to stop a customer from leaving the store with items that had not been paid for, then they were doing their job, and who can fault them for trying to prevent theft?

The item I posted above also reports that the customers in question were making quite a scene, and disrupting other customers and the conduct of business. This may be the reason for wm banning them from their stores.

My entire point is that what really transpired is unclear, and we have, for the most part, only one side of the story. I'm not defending or accusing anyone, just trying to discern the facts in order to have a better idea of what actually happened.

[lollybaby]

108. Again, the DA's decision is on the accusation brought by the couple...

Walmart and any Retailer can go after an alleged shoplifter(s) criminally and/or civilly! There is a mention of charges in one of the articles I read if I remember correctly, something about disorderly conduct. Look people, no Retailer will risk leaving itself wide open to a law suite by engaging a series of bad conducts. Remember if the perspective we have been told is correct, I see possible False accusation charges, False detention charges, Emotional abuse and Mental anguish charges thrown in. Any Trial lawyer will list over a hundred possible and winnable charges that could be throw at the Retailer and its employees individually but these attorneys and their legal representation are refusing to move on any civil law suite, you explain to me why!

[boppers]

107. "I didn't know how to use a scanner!"

"I didn't know I had to put it on the belt!"
"I didn't know I couldn't put an item in another item!"
"I didn't know I wasn't supposed to switch UPC codes!"

Shoplifters say the darndest things.

[lollybaby]

109. Thank you! We are supposed to be a discerning body of posters here.

Not people who jump on any band wagon without attempting to get the fact right, just saying...

[On the Road]

124. That's What it Sounds Like to Me, Too

Sometimes when you scan an item, it doesn't register, so you have to rescan it. There's an audible tone that's difficult to miss.

So the shoppers probably knew it didn't scan and just put it in the bag anyway. That would be a sort of shoplifting, although abetted by the machine.

None of that has any bearing on how Walmart or the shoppersa handled the situation afterwards.

[regnaD kciN]

82. I've got a simple solution...

If you're not part of a wealthy two-income family, though... well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team's authority.

...I never shop at WalMart.

[regnaD kciN]

83. Well, you can't blame WalMart...

I mean, we're talking about two gays who came in to get over $15 worth of Bic lighters? Just what were they planning to do with all those lighters? Could they be part of a gay terrorist group, buying lighters in bulk to pass out to their fellow-travelers to go out and...and...set fire to churches as part of their evil homosexualist agenda??? We should all thank WalMart for protecting us from church-burning gay terrorist groups!!!!!

[Xicano]

86. Unlawful detention is a crime.

There is also nothing in unlawful detention laws describing exceptions for mistaken identities. They should have sued.

[Wizard777]

116. So is Kidnapping. For taking the children to another area against their parents will.

They should file charges and have their asses locked up.

[alp227]

89. Cops > Walmart? I never thought that'd happen!

If you've ever read Jonathan Turley's blawg, you know how many times police nationwide violate the motto, "To Protect and Serve".

But props to the cops in this case where the "police determined no shoplifting had taken place". I guess the "We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" policy is getting a bit dumb now.

[TicketyBoo]

90. I knew there was a reason

why I avoid self-checkout.

This is seriously wrong.

[AzNick]

98. And a reason why I avoid Walmart

Wife goes there and I give her grief each time.

[TicketyBoo]

103. Not a lot of choice here.

K-Mart and Target are 100 miles away. Walmart is about it.

[Divine Discontent]

105. order as much as possible off the net ahead of time, I understand perishables are a prob with that

hopefully you can find any way you can to effect them. I did, even though I go slightly out of my way at times, or wait for things in the mail, I do it. I used to spend hundreds a month at walmart, and now that store gets 10-20 a month from me! I hope they have hundreds doing it to them at each store.

[TicketyBoo]

110. Boycotting Walmart

isn't really an option for me.

I do a lot of shopping online, but, obviously, you can't buy everything online. Shipping charges would double the cost of most things I buy, and some things just aren't available on line.

One thing I won't buy at Walmart is cut meat because of what they did to their butchers when they wanted to unionize. They fired the butchers and went to pre-packaged meat. It's easy to keep with that boycott because meat from the grocery store is so much fresher than Walmart's prepackaged crap.

[trickyguy]

93. Unrecommend usually means the person doesn't appvove.

So maybe they just don't like gay couples shopping at Wal Mart.

Or maybe they support Wal Mart in this obvious breach of civil liberties.

Those guys should definitely get a lawyer and sue Wal Mart's ass.

[bertman]

95. Recommend. When I recced, it went from 128 recs to 131. Man, do I have the POWER!!

[Divine Discontent]

104. You're like He-Man or something! hahaha 3 recs in your power!

[Gman]

100. LOL! I know someone caught shoplifting from WalMart and they got a credit card from Walmart

a few years later, unsolicited even. Lifetime ban! Ha! Walmart doesn't have a clue WTF they're doing. There's absolutely no way WalMart can ever enforce anything like a lifetime ban.

[pennylane100]

112. I only stop at walmart

to use their bathrooms. I used to flush five times and use a ton of paper towel to wipe my hands but that was before I became aware of our environmental concern.

[Gman2]

118. Whole Foods their asses.

[mortfrom]

123. This doesn't make sense

1) How did the store people know to ask about the lighters?
2) Every scanner I've ever used would not continue if I put something on the scales that hadn't been scanned.

There's bullshit going on here from somewhere. One would have to believe that Wal-Mart likes to harass customers by somehow jimmying their scanners just for fun. Or because they don't like gays. I'm not buying it.

[Piewhacket]

125. Sensible... but keep in mind

both the police and the DA exonerated them for shoplifting.

So whatever is odd about this doesn't seem to be on the
customer side.

I think the scanner malfunctioned and employees had been taught
to treat such an error as presumptive attempted shoplifting.

That would be an ILLEGAL policy, btw, and a plaintiff might be able to
'ride that horse', along witht the abusive and insulting demand for $150,
to a nice big award and punitive damages award. Right about
now I figure WM is CYA by revoking any such memos and revising the
training.

WM employee's SHOULD have treated it as a scanner malfunction
and requested the customer pay for the merchandise.

But then, just how much training is WM going to give minimum
wage employees, anyway?

[TheMadMonk]

126. I protest self checkouts by becoming absolutely helpless.

It force the supervising assistant to come do it all for me.

[Piewhacket]

127. I do that a lot too. In my case I don't shop much and actually need the help.

Anyway, that should solve the problem... but not always.
The clerk can screw up and its STILL your problem.

A different place, long ago and far far away.
I had just put my stuff on the counter and was run through and
paid and started to walk out when they stopped me.

But they didn't tell me what the problem was...
they did all the detention, go to a detention room...
when they finally told me it was for stealing candy
I blanched, for I had purchased 3 candy bars but didn't
check the receipt to see if the clerk had rung them all up.

What if she hadn't? Panicked I looked in my bag and there were
the 3 candybars. I mumbled something about it not being my
fault if the clerk hadn't run them up... then peered
carefully at the reciept. One...two...three candybars...
(thank god). I showed the manager, who grumbled something
about 'watch it' and was free to go.

A store employee must have seen me taking candy from the
shelf while "acting in a suspicious manner", near as I can figure.

I had a professional job and plenty of money in my pocket.
But I always wondered if I would have a criminal record if
the clerk had made a mistake and missed one of the candybars.