Man Banned from Walmart

[SpidermanTuba]

So, what you are sayong is that if it were YOUR store and someone set off an alarm, you're just going to let it pass even though they may have just stolen you blind?

That's a great way to fold your business quite quickly.

It does explain why he thinks we need the Government to save us from ourselves.

Here, boedica, if you're actually interested in what the law says, instead of what you think the law should say, read this forum thread -
Scenario about a call to a retail store for receipt check - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com -
All the responses are by cops. Most of them basically conclude that:

In the criminal aspect, many of you are right, the store personnel (including loss prevention) cannot and will not physically detain you.

In the civil aspect, they do have a right to ban you from their property for failure to go by their rules. It is their store, their property. If you do not want to have your receipt verified, then fine, shop somewhere else.

Which supports what I've been saying. The store owner has no right to force you to submit to a search as a condition of leaving their property - they only have the right to ban you from coming in the future, or to detain you on suspicion of shoplifting. But if they detain you without probable cause, they can be themselves charged with a crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, what you are sayong is that if it were YOUR store and someone set off an alarm, you're just going to let it pass even though they may have just stolen you blind?

That's a great way to fold your business quite quickly.

It does explain why he thinks we need the Government to save us from ourselves.

There is nobody who is more an advocate of unalienable rights as I am, and the right to one's property and to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure would fall into that category. That right does not require others to assume unreasonable risk however, nor does it require them to allow me to violate their right to defend their own property.

In other words, if I do not wish to be in a position of having to demonstrate that I am not a thief, I should not frequent an estabishment that has a rule that I might need to do that.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, what you are sayong is that if it were YOUR store and someone set off an alarm, you're just going to let it pass even though they may have just stolen you blind?

That's a great way to fold your business quite quickly.

It does explain why he thinks we need the Government to save us from ourselves.

There is nobody who is more an advocate of unalienable rights as I am, and the right to one's property and to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure would fall into that category. That right does not require others to assume unreasonable risk however, nor does it require them to allow me to violate their right to defend their own property.

In other words, if I do not wish to be in a position of having to demonstrate that I am not a thief, I should not frequent an estabishment that has a rule that I might need to do that.

You beat me to it!

Seriously, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[boedicca]

I'd say that this thread has reached the

stage.

ST has presented null set convincing arguments that a merchant cannot set the ground rules to validate that items of been purchased before being taken from his property.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's a hobby of mine to point out idiocy.

Proof that you're a self-righteous elitist prick.

Nope.

Just better than you is all.

Have a good day