LOL. Don't show your receipt @ Walmart, get banned for life

[Locut0s]

Arrogant fucks like this deserve to be taken down a notch. I may hate Walmart but I support their ban of someone like this.

 

[boomhower]

Didn't read the article... but I don't get why he got the trespassing warning. I would think he would only get a trespassing warning if he tried to go back into the store.

He was given a warning by the Officer so that if they get called again they can check their system and see that they warned and take him straight to jail. If they didn't they would have to detain him while a Walmart employee goes across town to the magistrates office and swears out a warrant, then they can take them to jail. Basically it's a big time saver. That's the way it works in NC at least.

 

[Siddhartha]

Haha. Tell the truth, usually if there's a line to show receipts at the door, I dispense with being accomodating and stroll right by. If he doesn't follow me, I win. If he does follow me, I show my receipt then and bypass the line. Win-win!

What do you win when you do not show your receipt and if he does not follow you?

 

[KK]

what do you think they should be able to do when you enter a store, make a purchase and then decide not to honor their rules?

Show me where this is in their rules. You make a purchase in a walmart, no where does it mention that you got to show your reciept. Now if they insist at the door, then that is after the sale and they are changing up the rules. Sure, they are very much in their right to ban you from their store, but they cannot hold you without your consent. A cop can, but not a walmart tard.

 

[n7]

Excellent!

I love the arrogance of these idiots who cannot put themselves in someone's elses shoes for two seconds & realize why a store might request proof of purchase.

Full:thumbsup: for the ban.

 

[Howard]

What do you win when you do not show your receipt and if he does not follow you?

Obviously he saves time.

 

[wiredspider]

What happened after 2 years?

He graduated or left college, so he isn't in the area of that Walmart anymore.

Like other said, Walmart can't really enforce the ban, but if you do something else crazy in their stores later, they can take more action against you, press charges, etc.

 

[StageLeft]

I have had two "altercations" not showing my receipt at walmart but now I do when asked simply because frankly I know their preference and if I don't like it I really can shop elsewhere.

 

[alkemyst]

Show me where this is in their rules. You make a purchase in a walmart, no where does it mention that you got to show your reciept. Now if they insist at the door, then that is after the sale and they are changing up the rules. Sure, they are very much in their right to ban you from their store, but they cannot hold you without your consent. A cop can, but not a walmart tard.

You see the receipt checker at the door, right? You realize this is in their policy, right?

Them's the rules. Don't like them, don't shop.

Personally I feel a shop owner or their employees should be able to stop those that they feel are stealing.

Only in America do we bite off our noses to spite our face.

 

[geno]

Only in America do we bite off our noses to spite our face.

Yeah but let's not forget the only thing at stake here was someone's invitation to Wal-Mart. I can't shop at your zoo of a store anymore? Oh no, whatever will I do?

Then again, this is coming from someone who usually avoids the place because I can't stand the clientele.

 

[Engineer]

Would have been easier to show the receipt I suppose. The real loser here is Walmart. They no longer have a paying customer...by their own choice. Shrugs.

 

[shortylickens]

Would have been easier to show the receipt I suppose. The real loser here is Walmart. They no longer have a paying customer...by their own choice. Shrugs.

Yeah but ultimately they keep their prices low and save thousands of customers. They are so popular they cant worry about individuals.

 

[geno]

Would have been easier to show the receipt I suppose. The real loser here is Walmart. They no longer have a paying customer...by their own choice. Shrugs.

If only more people would take the same approach, Wal-Mart would absolutely be the first to crack. How funny would that be? Beat them into submission at their own game.

 

[Engineer]

Yeah but ultimately they keep their prices low and save thousands of customers. They are so popular they cant worry about individuals.

Interesting point...but one that Walmart executives disagree with. If you've watched "The Age of Wal-Mart" on CNBC, there was a section that talks about a lost customer and the potential lifetime losses from such a customer.

This guy didn't do anything wrong technically (no stealing, etc) so to ban him because of his actions when he did not break a law simply hurts WalMart period. If even one more person reads the blog and does the same, there are now two customers that Walmart lost. Of course, there's a chance that someone reads the blog and shops at Walmart when they didn't before.

Just bad, IMO, to kick out a paying customer that has technically done nothing wrong - for life.

 

[HannibalX]

I can see it from both sides. On one hand it's a poor business decision as was said. You basically are giving up any additional revenue from this person - forever. On the other hand the LP agent wants that store to run smooth and banning a trouble maker like this guy makes things run smoother. That's why Walmart hires him, to keep the troublemakers out and the inside of the store safe.

Tough call.

 

[SooperDave]

He was given a warning by the Officer so that if they get called again they can check their system and see that they warned and take him straight to jail. If they didn't they would have to detain him while a Walmart employee goes across town to the magistrates office and swears out a warrant, then they can take them to jail. Basically it's a big time saver. That's the way it works in NC at least.

Notice to appear/site release way more likely unless something else is going on. No way is an officer going to waste his time taking someone to jail over something so petty.

 

[ChaoZ]

Interesting point...but one that Walmart executives disagree with. If you've watched "The Age of Wal-Mart" on CNBC, there was a section that talks about a lost customer and the potential lifetime losses from such a customer.

This guy didn't do anything wrong technically (no stealing, etc) so to ban him because of his actions when he did not break a law simply hurts WalMart period. If even one more person reads the blog and does the same, there are now two customers that Walmart lost. Of course, there's a chance that someone reads the blog and shops at Walmart when they didn't before.

Just bad, IMO, to kick out a paying customer that has technically done nothing wrong - for life.

Do you remember how much?

 

[Engineer]

Do you remember how much?

From around the 8:30 mark here - estimated at $215,000

 

[TheVrolok]

I can understand those who choose to exercise their personal freedoms in situations like this to prove a point, but at the same time .. might it be wiser to pick your battles?

 

[HannibalX]

If having legal access to Walmart isn't important to you then what's it matter? It seems like Walmart is potentially losing out more than this guy is.

 

[alkemyst]

Yeah but let's not forget the only thing at stake here was someone's invitation to Wal-Mart. I can't shop at your zoo of a store anymore? Oh no, whatever will I do?

Then again, this is coming from someone who usually avoids the place because I can't stand the clientele.

I avoid WalMarts...not worth dealing with the scourge of the earth that shop there.

 

[boomhower]

Notice to appear/site release way more likely unless something else is going on. No way is an officer going to waste his time taking someone to jail over something so petty.

We do it all the time. Usually they are stealing on top of it but if they notice someone who is banned they go to jail.