Walmart v. Cicero

[Pete C.]

Pardon me, but I'm a little bewildered about this whole receipt checking thing. I'm in and out of Wally world at least twice a week and the only time any one has asked to see my receipt is when the cashier forgets to de-magnetize the anti-theft device and the alarm goes off.

Now Sam's Club is a different story. Those folks check each and every receipt against what is in your basket, and then deface it so you can't come back in later and shop for the same things again and bypass the checkouts.

 

[MarkC]

Forgetting whatever motive or attitude he may or may not have had, if we assume that Cicero is truthful and the employee pushed him first (which admittedly isn't entirely clear from this video), then what is the employee guilty of?

And once again, Groucho has said a mouthful.

"Somehow right and wrong is being confused with the legal system here."

I would add that this is very often true, and a shame.
The legal system has strayed some distance from actually concerning itself with right and wrong, and is these days, more concerned with perpetuating itself.

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

This is a case of assault and battery. Cicero should never have pushed the WalMart employee to the floor.*

---

Was the response of the greeter excessive? Have people not been known to blow things out of proportion? Likely the credentials and respect due for the adversaries (assuming dollars are not in the formula) will determine the outcome. A sniveling wal mart greeter may not get the public's affection, depending upon cicero's career.

But another question for you - in my father's office, a woman sued for assault of some sort because a manager put his hand on her shoulder to escort her out of the office (verified by witnesses that this was the nature of the touch). She won. These days, I have been led to believe that undesired touching of ANY SORT, is effectively assault of some sort. If you came up to me and touched my elbow (not a brush by or accidental bump), it could be construed as assault. How much of that is actually true??? In the end all, without bruises, it is kind of tough to determine the magnitude of a 'touch' of any sort (from pinkie push to punch in the face), so how does one discern between an anorexic woman weighing 65 lbs pushing with all her might (which may be ill-natured but not have any real effect on, say, a large man), and someone like cicero, who may have enough mass that a light touch impart sufficient momentum to move a body relatively far? It is a bona-fide misunderstood topic.

Thanks,

JMH

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Is this video still up? If so, where?

 

[Gary Allan]

In Sam's Club's situation, you applied for a membership ..which had bylaws to be submitted to as a condition of membership. That still doesn't allow them to touch you in the process.

I've never had a greeter check my receipt. I've set off the door alarm when the cashier, as much as she tried, could not find the tag on a pair of steel tips. The lady asked to see the receipt, I showed her and I also said that the cashier tried and failed to find the tag. She made sure that she got the register number so that she could write up the cashier.

Most people are not going to keep walking or attempt to keep walking if "something is wrong". Most of us don't mind helping stores contain retail theft and tend to applaud the effort to keep prices in control by reasonable means. If the required means becomes too cumbersome to warrant going to the store (for example, being searched before entering and searched before leaving - occupying 10 minutes and making you disrobe) ..then surely you will go elsewhere. Sounds easy enough ..and if viewed in that one dimensional perspective, it is.


It's always the "limits" that make the distinctions. Everyone has their definition of reasonable ..in both action and reaction.

It's the difference between teaching "tolerance" ..and teaching "Being gay is a viable and potential lifestyle for you to choose" in public schools. One (the former) many would accept on face value without too much debate. We pride ourselves as tolerant of differences (at least we like to feel that way about ourselves). Many would not, however, EVER endorse the later ..because that was never an anticipated side effect in "limits" and they would find it "not reasonable".

Which one do you find falls into your idea of being "reasonable". Which one objectionable? What makes your definition the correct one?

As I've clearly demonstrated, the only differences in the above two statements is one of "expectations" of what one finds as reasonable.

When expectations fall outside of what the average person may expect, then it's reasonable to object to them ...and react to them as an average person would.

Now we could surely say that ONE approach to this situation would be to say "Get your hands off of me!" and remain passive. Yet that would imply that you are only to remain passive upon being touched and implying that this is the ONLY appropriate response. Again, where is the address of the initiating violation?

Can you be trespassed upon and do absolutely nothing in response besides standing there and crying "foul!!"?? I see no mandate that states anywhere that one must always choose the least disruptive response to an assault/affront/violation/trespass. I think that the offendee gets some latitude in that call. He never asked to be touched and the offender surrendered, at least some, rights to determine the severity of the reaction.

This is a debate of personal philosophies here. The principles aren't all that important.

 

[SLM]

Wal-mart doesn't do it here either. Most retailers have loss pervention for a reason - there trained to stop shoplifters. Employees are not. If Cierico had not shoved this employee back, Wal-Mart would probably be paying him off to hush up. The recipt checker might have gotten the old John Wayne security guard complex and/or had been told by his manager to stop people if they wouldn't show recipt. My retail training said "Do not stop shoplifters that is loss prevention's job". We could assist them, but only at there request. Managers helped them mostly. If the security buzzer went off and the customer still continued out the door we could not stop them either. Don't want to show recipt or deal with some stupid anti-theft device that doesn't stop theft? Don't say anything and keep on moving.

 

[moribundman]

Quote:

---

These days, I have been led to believe that undesired touching of ANY SORT, is effectively assault of some sort. If you came up to me and touched my elbow (not a brush by or accidental bump), it could be construed as assault. How much of that is actually true???

---

Depending on when where and how, someone may only have to get into your way or have to make oral threats to commit "assault."

As I previously said, anybody who lays hand on me will regret it. If time allows, I will give one warning before resorting to a forward defense.

 

[Al]

Quote:

---

a woman sued for assault of some sort because a manager put his hand on her shoulder to escort her out of the office (verified by witnesses that this was the nature of the touch). She won.

---

This is why the legal system is broken. But even more broken are the Lemmings that sit on a jury and let this HS (not high school) happen. Waste of Government resources.

 

[Win]

Quote:

---

Not so..... well, sorta. There is absolutely NO MANDATE that our presumption of innocence is ONLY applicable in criminal proceedings. We are presumed "innocent" in our default conduct as a bona fide citizen of the USA. We are not subject to unlawful search and seizure ..we have the right to privacy ..and any number of other assured liberties because we have done nothing to have them withheld from us.

---

Well, OK, then.

I won't dwell on the inconvenient fact that the liberties you mention above protect you only from the actions of the government and not WM, but if you insist on being treated with a presumption of innocence by all sectors, public and private, then that's OK by me.

I applaud your principled stand on this matter and only ask that you extend the same principles of trust, dignity, and humanity to all with whom you come in contact. Leave the keys in your car. Leave your doors unlocked. Lay your wallet on the table while you go wash your hands at a restaurant. Post all your credit card numbers on the internet. There are no thieves walking among us, are there? Everyone is presumed innocent are they not? What could possibly go wrong?

Of course you will not do this because you have common sense and know this would be an invitation to disaster in many parts of the country - there ARE thieves among us and you rightly think it prudent to protect your property. As does WM. So the rest of us have to endure some slight and transient insult to our dignity. Big deal.

All sarcasm aside, I still think the best way to deal with dislike for WM's policies is to take your $$$ elsewhere and go shop a Mom and Pop - they could probably use your business.

Quote:

---

So, if WM wants to enter into an ad campaign ...or even a very large simple language sign that says, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. EAT and DIE and take your money elsewhere" .......fine. Otherwise, if you all of a sudden feel yourself frisked at WM (you appear to think that this would be fine if it was their policy, right? Their house ..their rules) ..just shrug ..bend over and smile "Thank you very much, sir! Can I have another." ..and when they're done ..take your business elsewhere.

I'm naturally

taking it out to something you would object to on the spot ..but that, again, comes into where you draw your line.

---

I can easily tell you where I draw the line - forcefully shoving underpaid, frail looking, employees who have to carry out their bosses policies (no matter how half baked) or get fired, around in the exits over showing a receipt. That's where I draw the line. It's uncivilized, it's uncouth, and it's unnecessary. There are far better ways to deal with a policy you disagree with than a felony charge AGAINST YOU.

Besides, this whole mess has nothing to do with WM's policies. It's a criminal proceeding. AFAIK, WM is not charged. Our guy is. I sincerely hope it works out for him.

 

[Win]

Quote:

---

Is this video still up? If so, where?

---

Ron,

There was a link to the video around page 5 or 6 of last month's debate on this topic.

 

[Auto-Union]

Wow. Without commenting specificly on Cicero's situation, because I don't know much about it, let me share some relavent notes.
afaik, after you purchase or make an exchange for somethign, it's YOURS. 10 seconds or 10 years later, you don't have to prove to a 3rd party (other than law enforcement) it's yours...no more than you could march back to the register and demand return of the rare currency you accidentally paid with....deal DONE.

I think reciept checkers degrade the community the store comes to do buisness in. The stores need to adhere to the COMMUNITY standard. Hey, if you let them treat everybody like a criminal, we are all living in a jail

Homie Depot started doing this practice AGGRESSIVELY in my center city area, but does no such thing in the surburbs. The "bouncers" literally would block in your vehicle and harass you the whole way across the lot. Pretty bad stuff, so I am sympathetic w/Cicero.

Tower Records thought I stole something and had some hot-shot NYPD ex-cop confront me at the door. He and his goon squad suffered a few body slams, cracked ribs and fingers bent back until they snapped. Cops came after the store was closed and cleared and they hurried me out, "no problem, sir". They knew the store was wrong. Basicly, when the store stops you, the HAVE to be right. You don't have to stop your exit because of a "beeping sound" from a tag sensor, if they stop you and you are innocent, it's unlawfull and a potential civil suit. I don't take or not take actions because of beeps, what am I a trained animal?

Skip ahead to WalMart. The checkers don't ask me for my reciept. Would you?

 

[PRND3L]

Quote:

---

Is this video still up? If so, where?

---

from the original thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSM6681E3rA

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

Can you be trespassed upon and do absolutely nothing in response besides standing there and crying "foul!!"?? I see no mandate that states anywhere that one must always choose the least disruptive response to an assault/affront/violation/trespass.

---

The law mandates that in self defense the level of violence used must be proportionate to the threat. (Someone puts his hand on my chest to stop me from leaving and I lay him out in the floor, I'll have a hard time proving self defense.) Also, many jurisdictions do have a "duty to retreat" before self defense can be justified.

 

[Win]

Quote:

---

You don't have to stop your exit because of a "beeping sound" from a tag sensor, if they stop you and you are innocent, it's unlawfull and a potential civil suit.

---

Not good advice in my state:

5-36-116. Shoplifting.

(a)(1) A person engaging in conduct giving rise to a presumption under § 5-36-102(c) may be detained in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee in order that recovery of a good may be effected.
(2) The detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee does not render the law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(b)(1) If sufficient notice has been posted to advise patrons that an antishoplifting or inventory control device is being utilized, the activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person's exiting an establishment or a protected area within the establishment constitutes reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator.

(2) Any detention under subdivision (b)(1) of this section shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the antishoplifting or inventory control device or for the recovery of a good.

(3) A detention under subdivision (b)(1) of this section by a law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee does not render the law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(c) As used in this section, "antishoplifting or inventory control device" means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure or from a protected area within a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure.

(d)(1) Upon probable cause for believing a suspect has committed the offense of shoplifting, a law enforcement officer may arrest the person without a warrant.

(2) The law enforcement officer, merchant, or merchant's employee who has observed the person accused of committing the offense of shoplifting shall provide a written statement that serves as probable cause to justify the arrest.

(3) The accused person shall be brought immediately before a magistrate and afforded an opportunity to make a bond or recognizance as in other criminal cases.


History. Acts 1957, No. 50, § 4; 1971, No. 164, § 1; 1975, No. 458, § 1; 1975, No. 928, § 15; 1983, No. 551, § 1; 1985, No. 404, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2251; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 246.

Also: A.C.A. section 5-36-405. Detention upon activation of antishoplifting or inventory control device.

 

[moribundman]

Quote:

---

Also, many jurisdictions do have a "duty to retreat" before self defense can be justified.

---

Cicero was supposed to retreat from the exit and back into the store ? Little frail employees accosting you may not be offensive to you, but I much prefer a busty bimbo laying hand on my receipt, I tell you that.

 

[G-MAN]

Here is a typical jury instruction on self defense:

Quote:

---

The statute reads:

"The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."

In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force. Self defense is also the right of a person to defend against seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or reasonably anticipated. When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against (him/her) of unlawful force. The force used by the defendant must not be significantly greater than and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defendant.
Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the person's consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense.
If the force used by the defendant was not immediately necessary for the defendant's protection or if the force used by the defendant was disproportionate in its intensity, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self defense claim falls.
There are different levels of force that a person may use in (his/her) own defense to prevent unlawful harm.
The defendant can only use that amount or degree of force that (he/she) reasonably believes is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against harm. If the defendant is attempting to protect (himself/herself) against exposure to death or the substantial danger of serious bodily harm, (he/she) may resort to the use of deadly force. Otherwise, (he/she) may only resort to non-deadly force.

---

 

[moribundman]

Whoops!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

Not so..... well, sorta. There is absolutely NO MANDATE that our presumption of innocence is ONLY applicable in criminal proceedings. We are presumed "innocent" in our default conduct as a bona fide citizen of the USA. We are not subject to unlawful search and seizure ..we have the right to privacy ..and any number of other assured liberties because we have done nothing to have them withheld from us.



Well, OK, then. I won't dwell on the inconvenient fact that the liberties you mention above protect you only from the actions of the government and not WM, but if you insist on being treated with a presumption of innocence by all sectors, public and private, then that's OK by me.

---

I don't "necessarily" insist on anything. My point is that you've got a society that is fundamentally rooted deep in its liberties. We fight about them all the time. It is not unexpected for those who are bathed in liberties to expect that those same liberties, within sensible reason are maintained when conducting their otherwise lawful conduct. That is, we don't necessarily have expectations of having to EXPECT intrusions in us going about our business.

Take your child that you raise with all the horse manure that we're supposed to teach them. Truth, honor, and the American way. Raise him/her to be honest and honorable ...then throw them into a meat grinder with animals. Are they going to have a "just world"? They won't anyway ..but they will have the expectations of one shattered in the most unexpected manner.

When you go into the pool where my wife and daughters lifeguard, there are a clear set of rules governing the use of the pool and the absolute right to refuse access to it. Plain as day.

Quote:

---

I applaud your principled stand on this matter and only ask that you extend the same principles of trust, dignity, and humanity to all with whom you come in contact.

---

That's my baseline philosophy. I always extend goodwill whenever possible. Does it always meet a like person? No.

Quote:

---

Leave the keys in your car. Leave your doors unlocked. Lay your wallet on the table while you go wash your hands at a restaurant. Post all your credit card numbers on the internet. There are no thieves walking among us, are there? Everyone is presumed innocent are they not? What could possibly go wrong?

---

I didn't say that I was "all trusting". Keep in mind that locks and things only keep honest people honest. I would not preemptively treat someone like a thief just because there are thieves in the world.

I also do not willfully invite the public into my house...my car ..my life. If I did that for a living, and profited from it, I would have to EXPECT them to fall into various distributions of behaviors that is as vast and diverse as the public that they are drawn from. Most will behave in a normal socialized manner. Some will attempt and succeed at stealing from me. But I have no way BEFOREHAND of knowing which will do that. Since there are a vast majority of those who I welcome (with greeters that say "Welcome to Gary's") cheerfully into my establishment that are not criminal and are socialized (granted, to various degrees) I should have no reasonable expectation of the average customer being treated like a thief. Why would they? They're normal shoppers.

How could I possibly have any other disposition given the factual statistics?

Now if I'm a misfit and vent my frustration with thieves upon law abiding customers ..treating them like thieves, the problem is still NOT with the law abiding customers. The problem is with me. I'm treating good customers like thieves.

I'm antisocial ..undermining the accepted rules of society.

Quote:

---

All sarcasm aside, I still think the best way to deal with dislike for WM's policies is to take your $$$ elsewhere and go shop a Mom and Pop - they could probably use your business.

---

This I've always agreed with.

 

[MarkC]

I'll ask again:
What of the WM employee? He was wrong to physically touch anyone in the first place, but Cicero's reaction gives him a pass?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can you be trespassed upon and do absolutely nothing in response besides standing there and crying "foul!!"?? I see no mandate that states anywhere that one must always choose the least disruptive response to an assault/affront/violation/trespass.

---

The law mandates that in self defense the level of violence used must be proportionate to the threat. (Someone puts his hand on my chest to stop me from leaving and I lay him out in the floor, I'll have a hard time proving self defense.) Also, many jurisdictions do have a "duty to retreat" before self defense can be justified.

---

Sure. No one is going to accept lethal force when you catch someone stealing your hub caps ...and in our current climate if you do act in self defense and someone is killed, you will be put before a jury to see if they think that your reaction was justified. This is appropriate.

This is appropriate too. It will get both sides of the story, as dramatically depicted as the adversaries can, and the jury will decide who assaulted whom.

What the cop should have done is to have charged both of them. This has been done many times in such disputes.

There's no two ways about it. He was assaulted. His reaction MAY mean that he got charged ...but that in no way vindicates the greeter. Again, we blame the victim because we think that he broke the rules of being a victim. We give absolution to the criminal/offender just because they (appear) to have ended up on the shorter end of the stick.

"You had no right victimize that assaulting person!!"

Law isn't a game of offsetting penalties with the net difference bearing the whole burden of the incident. If so, let's us award victimhood to those who are less bloodied and always punish the one that prevails. We don't need to know who started it. We don't need to know if they were warranted in precipitating the incident. They could be the most aggravating element in the event ..relentless, unyielding, and just ended up biting off more than they could chew ..and they can get off under those standards...


Everyone keeps ignoring the greeter. He didn't just evaporate here. Does anyone want to string him up? I do. He committed a bona fide assault and you're all giving him a free ride ..because you're choosing a side in a win:loss winner takes all view here.

He brought a knife to a gun fight when he thought the other guy was unarmed. So you forgive him because he's stupid.