Racist 100 Year Old Wal Mart Greeter / Security Guard Gets Knocked Over

[ShawnD1]

On the whole checking my receipt thing: If there's a line waiting to be checked and I'm stopped because I decided to walk on by, I think I''ll try the following.

If there's a line to be checked and you try to walk out the door, they'll stop you in check yours so you don't need to wait in line

Be sure to apologize and say you're from canada/england/australia and they don't do that back home

 

[Wreckem]

Once you go outside whan a business is open to the public that is a public parking lot. Stores never allow workers to accost people outside of their doors. The law is in favor of the public outside the store.

Actually that is wrong.

Stores never allow employees to chase because of other liability reasons. They are liable for any injury the employee might suffer, as well as any injury to alleged shoplifter if they weren't actually shoplifting. They do however have the legal ability to detain someone in a parking lot/near the store under the proper circumstances.

 

[Wreckem]

Most parking lots are NOT owned by the stores, but by property managment companies leasing the store spaces. So even if it is private property, the store has no legal grounds outside of the space it rents.

Though, Wallmart does tend to own the entire property.

Although none of this really applies in the case, because the woman was stopped right outside the door which IS most definitely part of a stores premises.


1. Wal Marts owns their parking lots.
2. If a store confronted a person(asked them to stop) while inside the store, and the person left, they can follow and still detain.
3. It has to be on or near the premises.

They have to have a reasonable suspicion of theft. The pursuit has to be immediate. And any force used has to be reasonable. They aren't allowed to search without consent. Detainment can only be for a short time, typically 15 minutes.

Also, for those saying the old lady assaulted the black woman are wrong. It doesn't appear she grabbed the lady in the video. It looks like she touched her on the shoulder to get the woman's attention. Touching someone on their shoulder to get their attention is not civil or criminal assault.
I saw Wal Mart stop two people stealing meat. The people who were stealing were drunk and tried to fight when they were stopped. The people were taken down hard and physically detained. Cops showed up arrested the two people and the two people ended up getting charged with 1 felony and 3 misdemeanors for $60 in steaks.

 

[Wreckem]

Um, no.

This is a fallacy. The temp McDonalds kept their coffee at is the same temp any gourmet coffee website recommends as the serving temp. Starbucks to this day serves their coffee HOTTER than Stella's coffee was (Stella's was estimated at 170 degrees when she spilled it). The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

McDonalds lost because they didn't take the case seriously and offered no evidence to support the temps the coffee was served at.

Which is why the biggest myth of the case was she won a lot of money. People remember the original verdict. They don't remember the judge reducing it significantly. Or that the case was then settled out of court for much less than $600,000(the actual sum was undisclosed).

 

[alkemyst]

Sues wal-mart? For what exactly? The old bat said things like "you people". So she's a racist. last time I checked that's not illegal.

plus EVERYONE knows they check your receipt.

So ghetto ho thinks throwing in earbuds gets her a free ride.

 

[Wreckem]

If Walmart has no training for it's employees in this regard. Then yes. On the other hand if this lady had training and sighed off on it then Walmart may not be obligated.

Its much simpler than that. An employer is RESPONSIBLE for any tort their employee makes during the scope of their employment.

If the old lady did commit a tort, Wal Mart would be responsible for it. However, there was likely no assault, there was no false imprisonment(for various reasons), there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress as "you people" probably isn't outrageous enough for what is already a hard claim to win.

The old lady is probably racist. And was wrong in how she handled it, and should be fired, but the customer had other options as well. There shouldn't be any lawsuits from this case because there really isn't anything to sue over.

 

[Wreckem]

plus EVERYONE knows they check your receipt.

So ghetto ho thinks throwing in earbuds gets her a free ride.

The only places that have a legal right to check you receipt and car prior to exiting are Sams Club, Cost Co, and other membership stores were members expressly give the company permission to do so when they join. Failure to allow them to check your receipt and cart allows them to revoke your membership.

Wal Mart and regular B&M stores have no legal right to check you receipt without consent. Giving them your receipt to check = consent. If you don't give them your receipt they could potentially detain you until the cops arrive IF they have a reasonable suspicion you stole something. However, simply not showing your receipt does not create that reasonable suspicion.

 

[alkemyst]

fight the good fight:

http://indieregister.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/wal-mart-forces-receipt-check-standoff/

The ONLY people that have an issue with showing their receipt are the goods that would be stealing.

You showed all your shit to some checkout girl, nothing you have in your bag should be considered private.

I don't shop at Wal Mart if I can help it, but I understand stores not forceing people to queue up and go through a checkout line and then directly leave.