Complaint Review: walmart

Bumping this old thread I came across as I noticed Ann made an admission of guilt that everyone commenting to her missed.  

3rd paragraph from the bottom of her report, last sentence.  The son drank a chocolate milk in the store without paying for it.  

Think about it folks, shoplifting at a certain dollar amount is an arrestable offense, but a chocolate milk would not reach that dollar amount, but it would warrant a ticket to appear for shoplifting.  Being she committed this act with her minor child (allegedly autistic) with her she should be thankful she didn't pick up a child endangering and/or contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge(s).  

Considering how well spoken Ann is in her report write up while at the same time throwing consistently derogatory condescending names towards the LP I severely doubt the LP(s) in this story are anywhere near as guilty of the actions as she has led everyone here to believe.  

In closing Ann should be grateful to all involved she only got a ticket, as her actions could have resulted in much more severe and deserving consequences than they did.  

Ann
As I said in the subject, you can call give the stores location and ask for that managers name, they may give you the stores direct number so that you may describe the person, you do not have to state why you are asking, and I wouldn't if I were you, I would just say had a complaint and wanted to get the right person,Also her name will be in the police report ( it has to be) and you can get a copy of the police report for your defense.

The way you were treated was AWFUL to say the least, for that part the store is wrong.
A CUSTOMER, not an employee spit on you and you took yur revenge out by " fake stealing"
I am in agreement your autistic son should not have been with you, if you knew you were going to do this, as mothers it is OUR JOB TO PROTECT OUR KIDS, not to intenionally or unintentionally put them in a situation like this, what if you had went to jail? Your autistic son would have been terrified , becuase from what i know of autism, they are habitual in the things they do depending on the severity of the autisum, and for that you were wrong.

YOU HAD to know security would notice you, you wanted them too, and I have to ask you why? Did you think they would let you go your merry way? You HAD to know going in to prove a point to walmart was going to consist of some kind of confrontation. WAS IT WORTH it becuase the emloyees treated you badly over a customer spitting on you? Your son is the one I am most concerned for, please don't take this wrong, but you did make a choice to do this with a son that had a severe disability, maybe you didn't realize the effect it would have on him?

The way you were treated was horrible the first time, but I have to say the second time, you basically asked for it, by your own say so you shopped walmart for 15 years without incident, until a customer spit on you, you should have filed a police report, then civilly sued him, and listed the employees you contacted after the spitting. To go in and fake shoplifting was poor judgement. It took one icident and made it worse.
Ann, I feel bad for what they put you through about the spitting.

But as it was stated before by a previous post it COULD HAVE looked like you were going to steal, and then chickened out. After the spitting you could have went home and filed a complaint with their headquarters, and brought it to a higher up's attention, I wish you the best, but I would in the future, respectfully suggest if you are going to try something like that again, to leave your son with a trusted family member in case you go to jail.

After reading this report and comments, I felt a little theory and insight might be useful for those who have experienced/witnessed a loss-prevention' type situation.

I worked for Wal-Mart Canada (greater Toronto area) as a loss-prevention associate for 2 years starting in late 2001. I currently work as an in-house uniformed security officer at a large urban shopping mall in Toronto, and have been an active auxiliary police officer (volunteer) with the Toronto Police Service for over 8 years.

While the laws governing citizens, security persons, and police differ from province to province and state to state, they are essentially similar in spirit. As well, Wal-Mart operates the worlds most comprehensive and resource-laden loss-prevention system. Apparently, Wal-Mart has so much experience that it briefs the FBI (recruits, I imagine) on shoplifting detection and prevention. In this case, both the alleged behaviour of the customer (Ann) and the LP, shocked me.

When a customer reports an assault or any crime, they should receive assistance from any Wal-Mart associate. If you feel you were not taken seriously, you should have immediately spoken to a manager and followed up by contacting a District Manager. Also, 911 is a free call anywhere in the US or Canada, so you could have notified the Police even if associates did not offer you a phone.


Most stores do not have 100% CCTV camera coverage, and even if they did, getting useful information about a spitting incident is difficult at best. Without getting into technical details of video survellaince (which has many limitations), its basically a system geared to theft prevention, and the set-up can vary greatly from an old store to a newer one. What they told you is probably accurate for that store.

"Testing a store for CCTV coverage is suspicious at best, and criminal at worst. In Canada, intentionally pretending to steal, could be considered Mischief or Cause Disturbance, equivalent to a misdemeanor. You wouldn't pretend to steal a car, or pretend to assault someone, would you? Also, it proved nothing. The best LP's, especially at Wal-Mart, spot most of their suspects while walking the floor and not via CCTV. Chances are, you were spotted on the floor while pretending to steal, not by an LP in the office watching on camera. IN ANY CASE, just like any witness, Wal-Mart is under no obligation to provide witness information or CCTV footage, and has no obligation to tell you what security cameras or systems are in place in their private property.

There are always two sides to every story. However, the way you describe the behaviour of the LP's and/or associates, is very disturbing. If an LP acted that way in my stores, I would have reported them myself to my District Manager, and refused to work with them.

Wal-Mart trains its LP's to never approach a customer unless you are arresting them. Arresting them (always a citizens arrest, which (in Canada is) the same legal arrest as a police officer would make) can involve touching them, handcuffing them, and searching (for weapons only). If you are not arresting them, you let them go. Simple as that. You might record them on CCTV, get a license plate, etc etc, but you don't accuse them or go fishing for evidence or an admission. You also do NOT berate or refuse to identify yourself as Wal-Mart Security (you can give your Manager's name if they demand your name, but you don't necessarily have to give your full name, which can endanger you if you arrest a psycho or career criminal). You wouldn't give your name to the burglar you just nabbed while he was breaking into your house, would you?)

LPs should never threaten to, or search vehicles (tons of safety and legal issues there).


You should have written down everything the LP said, as soon as possible, and contacted the District Managers (store and LP), immediately with a complaint. Had I ever acted that way, I would have been documented, reprimanded, potentially fired, and my reputation destroyed (many LPs are future police applicants and take their behavior/performance/reputation very seriously). Treating customers, and even arrestees, in a dignified professional manner is an established Wal-Mart LP policy. I'm sure violations occur, but they shouldn't be tolerated for a second, especially coming on the heels of an incident such as this.


Finally, the issue of what really happened. Again, there are two sides to every story, as any security/police person knows. However, assuming you did not steal anything, I find it curious you were ultimately charged on the scene. What items were you accused of stealing, and where were they located? The LP should have, once it was realized you might have been falsely detained, admitted to the Police that they had no evidence of merchandise leaving the store, since you handed it to the courtesy desk. Wal-Mart policy is to admit a mistake as soon as it is discovered. But ultimately, it comes down to the integrity of the LP and the evidence the Police may also gather.

Finally, a few comments on some of the rebuttals. At least in Canada, most LPs are not former law-enforcement types, nor any that I ever met who were martial-artists. That made me laugh hehe. Everyone here was, for the most part, young guys and girls (20s) who enjoy learning and practicing a very unique talent, catching real criminals from age 8-88, and investigating huge internal thefts. We received defensive-tactics training and arrest techniques (including proper handcuffing) since we are criminally and civilly liable for improper Use of Force and so-called False-arrests. Remember, in Canada and the USA, LP's should never approach a customer unless we plan to arrest them. This is stated in all the Policies, including those from the US Wal-Mart LP division I trained with. Detention, however, is a more complex issue, and while Ann voluntarily agreed to go back to the security office, it might be considered an arrest (and possibly illegal, then) if the suspect felt she had no free will. Perhaps approaching suspects without an arrest is a new option for American LP's, but it is not an option here. It leads to too many PR nightmares and liability issues. If you make 2 false-stops in Canada, you're usually terminated for being a liability. I would suspect it was a rogue LP who went fishing and lost continuity in following Ann and did not observe her returning the items to the courtesy desk. Again, that would be contrary to training and policy in the biggest way. If you didn't observe the whole crime, you can't arrest for it.

Also, while I can't speak for your experience, I know how seriously Wal-Mart takes its LP program here. What happened to you, would never happen here, nor be tolerated. The mere suspicion of such a rogue LP would bring an internal investigation like you wouldn't believe. However, perhaps in some rural areas, where its hard to find good help and maintain good oversight, you might have run into some less-than-professional LP's who might not care about their reputation and the legal consequences, not to mention simple human dignity. There are a lot more stores in the US per capita, and if cops can go bad, so can LPs, especially if the District LP Manager does not keep a strong eye on them. Now while there is no quota, there is an "expectation", of roughly 2 arrests per 40 hours worked. But if youre properly trained, and have the 'right stuff', work hard, you should be able to meet and exceed that, especially when you consider the average Wal-Mart has between 1500-5000 sales a day, and probably 25-100 individual thefts a day (based on my experience).

An arrest (police or citizen/security) in Canada, necessarily involves touching the person, whether on the arm (symbolically) or restraining them, up to and including handcuffs. I would assume its similar in most states, including the option to handcuff.

You were assaulted by the spitter. In that case, Wal-Mart (its customers and staff and cameras) are just potential witnesses which couldn't corroborate your claim. Sometimes in life, that happens. In my store, if other crimes occurred, I did my best to try and help the victim AND maintain a good relationship with the local Police. If you aren't out to help people, you don't belong in LP or security.

Some states may have laws concerning concealment of merchandise while in the store, even without removing it. I believe Alaska may have that (old episode of COPS) and others may too. You may have committed a crime of concealment instead of theft, while pretending to steal.

In the end, you learned not to test security, since you EXPECTED to be caught and were (although not in the way you hoped, since they screwed up and ASSUMED you were stealing, even though a good LP would have realized you gave the items back). However, had I witnessed your behavior, I would have assumed you had gotten nervous and ditched the merchandise at courtesy. In the future, I would have followed you any time I had seen you from that day on. However, you should follow up with Wal-Mart in terms of your treatment by this female LP. Whether or not you get convicted, depends on the evidence you present, as well as the evidence that Wal-mart provided the Police.

Hopefully this post answers more questions than it raises, but ultimately it comes down to life. You did something customers are not supposed to do, and the LP did something LP's are not supposed to do. Did a family-man spit on you? Who knows? But when murders happen in packed nightclubs with no witnesses, don't expect a run-down Wal-Mart store to be able to catch a spitter on CCTV. The systems just don't work that way. You should have accepted it and moved on, instead of accusing Wal-Mart of lying about their cameras.

P.S. I have read a lot of wild stories about Wal-Mart in the US. From ignorant, lying, sexist Managers, to rude associates and off-the-wall Loss Prevention associates. Coming from the Toronto area, I have to admit I'm dumbfounded as to how any of these things could happen so frequently as it sounds online. There is so much corporate oversight in Canada, and so many customer-service/legal outlets where associates and customers can go to for help and guidance with their issues, that I wonder what is really happening. Its hilarious in one sense, and very sad in another, if only half the stories from US Wal-Marts are true. Everyone has complaints, and I still believe that Wal-Mart is a company that is taking advantage of the size and its workers to make every last bit of profit, but even so, it wasn't an unpleasant place to work on a daily basis, since I saw everyone from vice-presidents down to part-timers. Maybe the same redneck things are happening in rural Saskatchewan, but here in Toronto, it's a pretty straight-forward polite company. Just my two cents J Bring on the comments!

Your son deserves better.

How do you pretend to shoplift with Wal-Mart security and then blame them for how the confrontation affected your autistic kid?

Hey Ann! The camera works now!

The POSSIBILITY of them fixing the cameras because of your previous situation in JUST ENOUGH TIME to catch you pretending to shoplift would be laughable irony.

I'll bet you never factored THAT possibility!

The only real victim is your son which is a genuine shame, and I think I figured out what YOUR "disability" might be...

Let's see...You purposely tried to hide items on your person in an attempt to "check" security. Why? What possible reason, other than for future shoplifting sprees, did you need to "check" security at that store?

Its amazing. I've never been stopped by stopre security. Then again, I never hid items on my person in an attempt to "check" security.

I hope Wally World slams you in court.

BY most state laws, you sre not shoplifting unless you leave the store with the item, whether it is in your purse or in a bag. If the item stayed in the store and you left, you are not shoplifting, you are a consumer changing her mind in a walmart, choosing not to buy the item. Hopefully they do not have you on video leaving the store with the merhandise, whether you wanted to check the security or not is irrelavant. Hold you head up and hope you did not really leave the store and the matter will be dropped as soon as it hits the courthouse. You might get lucky and they may not even show up for court. You hsve the right to contact you local States attorney and get information from him directly. Good luck.

Ann,

I am not sure the readers of this story know that Walmart hires bloggers to defend the company's name and reputation. Therefore, they try to paint a negative picture on anyone who posts against Walmart. Here is a link from the New York Times for those interested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?hp&ex=1141794000&en=8add8717728087fe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I also agree with these hired Walmart bloggers who have been commenting on your story. It is dangerous that you fool around with security by testing their "arresting power". Proof or no proof, they can arrest you, and take you to court, and find you guilty.

I was also a victim of Walmart. I was falsely accused of shoplifting and found guilty. For my posting, it was listed under another falsely accused person's posting on 6/27/05.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff138892.htm

Bottomline is, Walmart has too much influence and power in every aspect of our lives. They are so powerful that they can get innocent people arrested and convicted. There is absolutely no way around that unless the victims band togather. Just like the victimized employees of Walmart. That is the only way that our voiced will be heard.

For those hired guns out there, don't you realize by now, that no one actually reads/comments on these type of postings, except for the people who where hurt by Walmart? Stop wasting your time twisting the truth!!! This woman, Ann, if you are telling the truth, did not steal anything!!!
If the security people are not able to find anything stolen, why don't they just let the person go? Maybe you are afraid of lawsuits due to false arrest?

How can you justify arrest someone, and charge her with shoplifting when she did not do so? Using the same analogy, we should put those who thought about killing someone, to death, even if he did not commit the act of killing?

Suggest this to your boss. Most store, even electronic stores who sell much more expensive things that Walmart does, have people in front checking for receipt/bags. I am sure Walmart does too. If anyone is under the suspicion of stealing, why not try asking to search, rather then confine the suspect in a backroom?

Once you cross that line, confining a person in a room against his will, you then run a risk of having him suing you for false arrest, if he is indeed innocent. I know you have all the power in the world. But wouldn't it be better to treat a customer, as a human being, and provide some service for a change?

You are the ones who should really think about what you are doing and the company that you represent...

Finally, Ann I really believe that you are innocent. It sounds that you are really afraid of getting jail time for this. Truth is, if you have a criminal mind, and are in trouble with the law, you would realize that this is a shoplifting charge, and people don't go to jail for that. Good luck with everything.

Fine, Steve

This is pulling the responses far off topic from Ann's original post, but...

If you are so confident that you ?can legally beat that fool to a pulp in the name of self defense? and then sue the store if its loss prevention person touches you or attempts to detain you, then I will await with great anticipation your post with the case number showing your not guilty verdict after you pulled the stunt Ann did, got yourself into her situation and beat up the loss prevention person who dared to intentionally touch you as you tried to leave the store. With equal anticipation, I await your report on how much a civil jury awarded you after you sued the store. I am quite sincere in this.

I am sure your defense attorney (after the stunt) will be quite happy to accept your retainer of several thousand dollars to aid you in proving your point. Your civil attorney may not be as willing to accept your case on a contingency basis as he/she probably can evaluate the chances of your success, but you might be able to convince him/her to take the cae if you pay by the hour and front all expenses. I equally believe if you were to seek legal advice in your state as to the probability of the success of your self defense claim or your civil suit BEFORE you pulled your stunt, you would be advised very strongly not to be so foolish.

Once you provide me with such proof, however, I will hunbly bow to your knowledge of ?life in the real world?. Until then, I will hold with my original post to you. I KNOW the laws and reality of my state, sir. I will not presume to tell you about Florida or Colorado where Ann pulled her stunt.

Now as you said to Nick, ?SHOW ME?.

I want to see it. I'll be waiting.

Tom,

I have lived all over this country and have seen this too many times. I have NEVER seen physical assault be less than a gross misdemeanor. It is usually some level of a felony.

For example:

NV= 1 finger touch, say you poke someone in the chest, unwanted. = FELONY

AZ= Spitting on someone = FELONY

OK= Any unwanted touch = FELONY

FL= Any unwanted touch = FELONY

Keep in mind these are all speaking of overt acts, not if you accidentally bump into someone, etc..

You may be surpised that you really do not understand the actual scope of the law. What is done in daily practice and what the law actually allows, are 2 very different things.

Also, keep in mind that once that loss prevention person touches me or attempts to detain me, I can legally beat that fool to a pulp in the name of self defense, then I can sue the store.

Thats life in the real world.

Okay, let me see if I have this right. You take your disabled autistic son to Wallyville, pretend to steal some junk, get caught by loss prevention, get suckered into going into the "little office" and wait for the cops and then charged with shoplifting. Oh dear god where do I start here?

1. You being disabled has NOTHING to do with your "rip-off". You state that for no other reason than to try to get sympathy. Save it, if you are capable of taking care of an autistic son, shopping, driving, etc. then you are doing pretty well. Your disability point is silly.

2. You took your autistic son to the store while you made it look as if you were committing a crime. What kind of mother are you? What are you teaching that boy? Why would you ever expose him to a situation that would be scary for any normal kid and terrifying for someone with autism? If this is the type of behavior you engage in when around your son then you really need some parenting classes.

3. You state Wal-Mart treated you "horribly." Well hell, what did you expect? Are they supposed to treat people who attempt to steal from the store with extra courtesy? They have no reason to believe you were just trying to prove a point. For all they know you chickened out at the last minute because there was someone checking receipts at the door. They deal with liars all day long in loss prevention why would they think you are any different? Did your "disability" make you look more honest?

4. You state that the security in the store "threatened and assaulted" you. Okay, they DID threaten to call the cops on you - as they darn well should if they thought you stole something. When exactly did they assault you? You never said they touched you in any way. You said they demanded to search your car, they threatened to call the cops and they insisted you go back in the store. How is that assault?

Shame on you.

Each state is going to have differing definitions and standards regarding how far a loss prevention employee may go to stop a thief.

In my state, I can almost guarantee you that no prosecutor would consider taking a case of a security person physically stopping a shoplifter unless the security person had no basis for the stop and serious bodily injury happened. In Texas, only grabbing a person's arm is not enough to constitute a crime. It requires the perpetrator's knowledge that the "victim" would find the touching offensive or provocative - pretty difficult to do if the officer is trying to detain a shoplifter or one who openly acted like one. Even then, the crime is considered to be at the least level of all misdemeanors (certainly not a felony as you stated) and carries only a modest fine.

Speaking in generalities or giving someone the impression of what the law might be in their state based upon what you believe to be the law in your state is, as Nick said, very risky.

Nick,

There is no need for a disclaimer. I am not giving legal advice, nor am I presenting myself as a legal professional in this matter.

Each person, under the law has the responsibility of what is called "due diligence" before acting on any information or advice obtained.

I do have a problem with those who assert bogus authority. Such as loss prevention or rent a cops. They are NOT law enforcement, and have absolutely no power as such.

I would like YOU to post the statute that allows a rent a cop authority to touch someone who is non violent. To touch someone on only an assumption. SHOW ME.

I want to see it. I'll be waiting.

Nick,

There is no need for a disclaimer. I am not giving legal advice, nor am I presenting myself as a legal professional in this matter.

Each person, under the law has the responsibility of what is called "due diligence" before acting on any information or advice obtained.

I do have a problem with those who assert bogus authority. Such as loss prevention or rent a cops. They are NOT law enforcement, and have absolutely no power as such.

I would like YOU to post the statute that allows a rent a cop authority to touch someone who is non violent. To touch someone on only an assumption. SHOW ME.

I want to see it. I'll be waiting.

Nick,

There is no need for a disclaimer. I am not giving legal advice, nor am I presenting myself as a legal professional in this matter.

Each person, under the law has the responsibility of what is called "due diligence" before acting on any information or advice obtained.

I do have a problem with those who assert bogus authority. Such as loss prevention or rent a cops. They are NOT law enforcement, and have absolutely no power as such.

I would like YOU to post the statute that allows a rent a cop authority to touch someone who is non violent. To touch someone on only an assumption. SHOW ME.

I want to see it. I'll be waiting.

Nick,

There is no need for a disclaimer. I am not giving legal advice, nor am I presenting myself as a legal professional in this matter.

Each person, under the law has the responsibility of what is called "due diligence" before acting on any information or advice obtained.

I do have a problem with those who assert bogus authority. Such as loss prevention or rent a cops. They are NOT law enforcement, and have absolutely no power as such.

I would like YOU to post the statute that allows a rent a cop authority to touch someone who is non violent. To touch someone on only an assumption. SHOW ME.

I want to see it. I'll be waiting.

You played with the proverbial fire and you got burned.

YOU chose to stage a shoplifting spree to prove a point. You did it. Now you know that Wal-Mart does have loss prevention security. You also know now that it is foolish to play like you are breaking the law as stores do take such things seriously. You acted like a criminal and you got treated like one.

As was said before, it is doubtful you will be convicted, but look at all the problems you brought upon yourself and your son for trying to act clever. I cannot blame Wal-Mart for reacting to your stunt as it did. You truly are the one at fault for the mess you are in.

I wish you luck with court. Hopefully a prosecutor will be able to see what you really were doing.

Steve from Florida--

It sounds to me like you have a blatant disreguard for authority in general. Be aware you can held legally responsible for the false information you post. The laws vary from state to state and what you posted does not apply in the state of Minnesota. You should be happy to know that if someone follows your advice, gets sued, he or she can then name you legally responsible. Since you did not place a disclaimer on your post, I hope you have an excellent attorney.

As for the potential shoplifter, in the state of Minnesota, you proved your intent to shoplift by willfully and intentionally violating several statutes. Thus, the 'burden of proof' is upon you to defend your actions in a court of law.

--N.G. 03-02-06

Ann-

How did security LIE to you? About the cameras? WMT uses security cameras in different areas at different times. In the walmart store that I worked, taped recordings from the camera were only made at night to watch the over-night crews. So, if you were shopping during the day, there likely was no physical tape for you.
BTW-even if they had a tape, they are under no obligation to hand over their private security tapes to you.

Then you whine about not really stealing anything. Gee, if I frame myself for a crime, I should be upset if I get convicted? Perception is reality, you tried to make security percieve you were a thief and so in reality you're busted.

Grow up.

Let me make it VERY CLEAR, I did not steal anything! If I did, I would deserve the ticket. I went about proving that the Security Lady was a liar in the wrong way and I have learned my lesson. And I now know more about the law (thanks to this site and my attorney).
The Security Person lied to me and to the Police Officers so at least I have proven that much.
Once again, the facts are this...The Store Security personnel is a joke and they are still threatening and assaulting their shoppers and nothing is being done about it.
As far as the hateful comments posted to me go, thats your opinion and I know you would have a completely different attitude if you were treated the way we were.
Steve's Post states that they are very dangerous and are wanna be cops. So true! Beware at WALMART!!! Always make you sure you have a reciept and God forbid you ever have to deal with the Security people there. Be careful when shopping and try to have a witnesses info before leaving.

It is never a good idea to "pretend" to shoplift from a store. That can get you into a lot of trouble as you have found out. Did you really think that there wouldn't be a scene after what you did? I would hope that you wouldn't try such a thing in the future but if you do I would suggest not taking your son with.

It is possible for security to view what is currently going on over the cameras while not taping anything. You didn't prove anything with your stunt. It is possible that security was alerted to your actions in some way other than the cameras or that the cameras are for viewing only (and not taping).

Let me make sure I understand you. You purposefully made it appear on a security camera that you were shoplifting by concealing unpaid merchandise in front of the camera? And now you are upset that security personel from Walmart apprehended you and had you arrested?

What did you expect them to do when they saw you putting unpaid items into that bag? That in itself should be enough evidence to prove that you were intending to steal (even though you were not, but nobody can be expected to believe that). Most stores that I've been in have signs up stating that shoplifting is a crime and they will prosecute. This isn't something to do as a joke.

You claim that you were mistreated by the security person, but shoplifters do not deserve to be given respect and to be treated nicely. Remember, a shoplifter is not a customer and therefore does not deserve to be treated as such. A customer goes into a store to buy merchandise, not to steal it without paying.

You may have been wronged by the person who spit on you, but remember that two wrongs do not make a right.

Loss prevention associates' job is just that: Protecting loss of company assets. They have no "quota." In regard to the guy spitting on you, here's the hard truth from what I understand from your post:

The man denied that he spit on you, and you said he did. There were no witness to vouch for you, and there was nothing on the camera to back it up.

What did you expect them to do about this? There WAS nothing they could do. The cops have no right to arrest someone if there's absolutely NO proof or evidence that he committed the assault.

Even if you took the guy to civil court, the charges will be dismissed because you have zero evidence.

In regard to the theft incident - again, I reiterate - security's job is to protect the interests of the store, not cater to someone who shows a propensity to steal. Did you steal the items? No. Did security have the right to harass you at your car? Absolutely, as long as they didn't put their hands on you.

You should be ashamed of yourself for bringing in your Autistic son KNOWING that you would probably end up taking heat from security. Did you bring him in in order to play him as a pity card? It doesn't matter that your son is disabled. You are still subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Additionally, the fact that you exhibited suspicious behavior in the store regardless of whether or not you walked out with the bags is stupid and irresponsible.

Chances are, you will NOT go to jail. The worst they can do to you, other than fine you, is issue you a court order prohibiting you from going into that particular Walmart.

Loss prevention associates' job is just that: Protecting loss of company assets. They have no "quota." In regard to the guy spitting on you, here's the hard truth from what I understand from your post:

The man denied that he spit on you, and you said he did. There were no witness to vouch for you, and there was nothing on the camera to back it up.

What did you expect them to do about this? There WAS nothing they could do. The cops have no right to arrest someone if there's absolutely NO proof or evidence that he committed the assault.

Even if you took the guy to civil court, the charges will be dismissed because you have zero evidence.

In regard to the theft incident - again, I reiterate - security's job is to protect the interests of the store, not cater to someone who shows a propensity to steal. Did you steal the items? No. Did security have the right to harass you at your car? Absolutely, as long as they didn't put their hands on you.

You should be ashamed of yourself for bringing in your Autistic son KNOWING that you would probably end up taking heat from security. Did you bring him in in order to play him as a pity card? It doesn't matter that your son is disabled. You are still subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Additionally, the fact that you exhibited suspicious behavior in the store regardless of whether or not you walked out with the bags is stupid and irresponsible.

Chances are, you will NOT go to jail. The worst they can do to you, other than fine you, is issue you a court order prohibiting you from going into that particular Walmart.

Loss prevention associates' job is just that: Protecting loss of company assets. They have no "quota." In regard to the guy spitting on you, here's the hard truth from what I understand from your post:

The man denied that he spit on you, and you said he did. There were no witness to vouch for you, and there was nothing on the camera to back it up.

What did you expect them to do about this? There WAS nothing they could do. The cops have no right to arrest someone if there's absolutely NO proof or evidence that he committed the assault.

Even if you took the guy to civil court, the charges will be dismissed because you have zero evidence.

In regard to the theft incident - again, I reiterate - security's job is to protect the interests of the store, not cater to someone who shows a propensity to steal. Did you steal the items? No. Did security have the right to harass you at your car? Absolutely, as long as they didn't put their hands on you.

You should be ashamed of yourself for bringing in your Autistic son KNOWING that you would probably end up taking heat from security. Did you bring him in in order to play him as a pity card? It doesn't matter that your son is disabled. You are still subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Additionally, the fact that you exhibited suspicious behavior in the store regardless of whether or not you walked out with the bags is stupid and irresponsible.

Chances are, you will NOT go to jail. The worst they can do to you, other than fine you, is issue you a court order prohibiting you from going into that particular Walmart.

Store Security has no legal right to detain or arrest anyone UNLESS that person is posing an iminent threat to another person's safety.

Other than that, they CANNOT touch you. If they do it is a FELONY. It is ASSAULT.

NEVER let one of these egomaniac morons push you around or intimidate you. And if they cross the line, you own them. Most of them are ex-law enforcement and think they still have a badge.

Or they are martial arts types waiting for a reason to beat up on someone. I'm personally waiting on this one.

Store security can:

Follow you anywhere, including to your car.
Take your picture.
Block your path without touching you.
Use intimidation and empty threats.

Store security cannot:

"Arrest" you..[unless citizens arrest proceedures were followed]
Touch you..[unless you were assaulting someone]
Force you to comply with requests.

Rent-a-cops are very dangerous, as most of them have no grasp on reality or knowledge of the law.

I'm still waiting on my payday at Wal-Mart. I have brought them to the edge a few times but they always gave up.

I had one jerk at Wal-mart attempt to detain me because I would not dig my reciept out for him.

Wal-Mart could avoid this problem by not putting any merchandise past the registers, and have controlled in and out lanes.

Big grocery stores do it, why cant Wal mart?

Store Security has no legal right to detain or arrest anyone UNLESS that person is posing an iminent threat to another person's safety.

Other than that, they CANNOT touch you. If they do it is a FELONY. It is ASSAULT.

NEVER let one of these egomaniac morons push you around or intimidate you. And if they cross the line, you own them. Most of them are ex-law enforcement and think they still have a badge.

Or they are martial arts types waiting for a reason to beat up on someone. I'm personally waiting on this one.

Store security can:

Follow you anywhere, including to your car.
Take your picture.
Block your path without touching you.
Use intimidation and empty threats.

Store security cannot:

"Arrest" you..[unless citizens arrest proceedures were followed]
Touch you..[unless you were assaulting someone]
Force you to comply with requests.

Rent-a-cops are very dangerous, as most of them have no grasp on reality or knowledge of the law.

I'm still waiting on my payday at Wal-Mart. I have brought them to the edge a few times but they always gave up.

I had one jerk at Wal-mart attempt to detain me because I would not dig my reciept out for him.

Wal-Mart could avoid this problem by not putting any merchandise past the registers, and have controlled in and out lanes.

Big grocery stores do it, why cant Wal mart?

Store Security has no legal right to detain or arrest anyone UNLESS that person is posing an iminent threat to another person's safety.

Other than that, they CANNOT touch you. If they do it is a FELONY. It is ASSAULT.

NEVER let one of these egomaniac morons push you around or intimidate you. And if they cross the line, you own them. Most of them are ex-law enforcement and think they still have a badge.

Or they are martial arts types waiting for a reason to beat up on someone. I'm personally waiting on this one.

Store security can:

Follow you anywhere, including to your car.
Take your picture.
Block your path without touching you.
Use intimidation and empty threats.

Store security cannot:

"Arrest" you..[unless citizens arrest proceedures were followed]
Touch you..[unless you were assaulting someone]
Force you to comply with requests.

Rent-a-cops are very dangerous, as most of them have no grasp on reality or knowledge of the law.

I'm still waiting on my payday at Wal-Mart. I have brought them to the edge a few times but they always gave up.

I had one jerk at Wal-mart attempt to detain me because I would not dig my reciept out for him.

Wal-Mart could avoid this problem by not putting any merchandise past the registers, and have controlled in and out lanes.

Big grocery stores do it, why cant Wal mart?

Store Security has no legal right to detain or arrest anyone UNLESS that person is posing an iminent threat to another person's safety.

Other than that, they CANNOT touch you. If they do it is a FELONY. It is ASSAULT.

NEVER let one of these egomaniac morons push you around or intimidate you. And if they cross the line, you own them. Most of them are ex-law enforcement and think they still have a badge.

Or they are martial arts types waiting for a reason to beat up on someone. I'm personally waiting on this one.

Store security can:

Follow you anywhere, including to your car.
Take your picture.
Block your path without touching you.
Use intimidation and empty threats.

Store security cannot:

"Arrest" you..[unless citizens arrest proceedures were followed]
Touch you..[unless you were assaulting someone]
Force you to comply with requests.

Rent-a-cops are very dangerous, as most of them have no grasp on reality or knowledge of the law.

I'm still waiting on my payday at Wal-Mart. I have brought them to the edge a few times but they always gave up.

I had one jerk at Wal-mart attempt to detain me because I would not dig my reciept out for him.

Wal-Mart could avoid this problem by not putting any merchandise past the registers, and have controlled in and out lanes.

Big grocery stores do it, why cant Wal mart?

I don't know. I did not post this to talk about who has it harder or who has a more severe disability. The facts are that my son and myself were treated horribly and the Walmart Security is out to make a quota and they are about as hateful and nasty as it gets. I have spent over 15 years shopping there and because of what happened there to me and my son, I will NEVER shop there again. Also, I have a big family and they have all decided to stop as well.

I don't know. I did not post this to talk about who has it harder or who has a more severe disability. The facts are that my son and myself were treated horribly and the Walmart Security is out to make a quota and they are about as hateful and nasty as it gets. I have spent over 15 years shopping there and because of what happened there to me and my son, I will NEVER shop there again. Also, I have a big family and they have all decided to stop as well.

I don't know. I did not post this to talk about who has it harder or who has a more severe disability. The facts are that my son and myself were treated horribly and the Walmart Security is out to make a quota and they are about as hateful and nasty as it gets. I have spent over 15 years shopping there and because of what happened there to me and my son, I will NEVER shop there again. Also, I have a big family and they have all decided to stop as well.

I don't know. I did not post this to talk about who has it harder or who has a more severe disability. The facts are that my son and myself were treated horribly and the Walmart Security is out to make a quota and they are about as hateful and nasty as it gets. I have spent over 15 years shopping there and because of what happened there to me and my son, I will NEVER shop there again. Also, I have a big family and they have all decided to stop as well.

You're able to drive your car, tend to a person with autism, walk around in a store, play all kinds of tricks on security, and rant about how you're being picked on for "fake" stealing, on a computer. Sounds like you're in better shape than me, and I don't get a dime from the taxpayers.

You're able to drive your car, tend to a person with autism, walk around in a store, play all kinds of tricks on security, and rant about how you're being picked on for "fake" stealing, on a computer. Sounds like you're in better shape than me, and I don't get a dime from the taxpayers.

You're able to drive your car, tend to a person with autism, walk around in a store, play all kinds of tricks on security, and rant about how you're being picked on for "fake" stealing, on a computer. Sounds like you're in better shape than me, and I don't get a dime from the taxpayers.

You're able to drive your car, tend to a person with autism, walk around in a store, play all kinds of tricks on security, and rant about how you're being picked on for "fake" stealing, on a computer. Sounds like you're in better shape than me, and I don't get a dime from the taxpayers.

To respond, I wish I would have known the law about this before hand but I did not. The Security lady told me as I was getting into my car that if I did not go with her, she would call the police and I would be going to jail. I was trying to explain to her that I did not take anything and the lady working the service desk had the sack. She did not believe me. Also, when I was spit on, the police and the mangers both saw the 2 spots where he had spit on me. The left shoulder of my coat and in my hair.

As far as the remark concerning why I would bring up the fact that my son and I are both disabilied, she was causing my son to have a "melt down" because of her threats and screaming at us. She laughed at me when I said that I was disabled. I brought it up because she asked where I worked and I informed her that I was on disability.
What a nightmare!!!!!!

I understand what you were trying to prove, but why do this? You put yourself and your son in a bad situation. By "playing" with security, did you really think they would let you leave and make fools of them? I'm sorry you were treated this way. Spitting on someone is an assault. Did you immediately go to someone in charge and ask that the police be called? As gruesome as this is going to sound, did you wipe the spit off?
If I were going to call the police, I would have
left the spit on me. (I know - GROSS) That would be your evidence. To hell with any cameras. I don't believe, that if all cameras were working, that it would've got a close-up of that idiot spitting on you. Also, why did he spit on you? What about witnesses? Any sensible person would know that going back into that store and doing what you did would only bring you problems. Good luck with these charges. I think you are going to need it. Also, I would like to say, that because of this website, I stopped shopping at any and all Wal-Mart's. I go to Target now. The atmosphere is much better there.

When you were already at your car, you should have gotten in and left! Those store security cannot physically touch you unless you are posing a danger to another person.

You went to that back room by your own choice.

You may very well get charged with shoplifting even though you gave the bag to the cust service desk.

The cop should not have written the ticket based on that evidence alone, but now that he did, you will have to defend it.

Is there some relevance here to the fact that you are disabled, or is that just for sympathy?

I am a 30% service connected disabled veteran, but I don't throw that up as a defense to anything.

Sticking to the relevant facts is usually best.

When you were already at your car, you should have gotten in and left! Those store security cannot physically touch you unless you are posing a danger to another person.

You went to that back room by your own choice.

You may very well get charged with shoplifting even though you gave the bag to the cust service desk.

The cop should not have written the ticket based on that evidence alone, but now that he did, you will have to defend it.

Is there some relevance here to the fact that you are disabled, or is that just for sympathy?

I am a 30% service connected disabled veteran, but I don't throw that up as a defense to anything.

Sticking to the relevant facts is usually best.

When you were already at your car, you should have gotten in and left! Those store security cannot physically touch you unless you are posing a danger to another person.

You went to that back room by your own choice.

You may very well get charged with shoplifting even though you gave the bag to the cust service desk.

The cop should not have written the ticket based on that evidence alone, but now that he did, you will have to defend it.

Is there some relevance here to the fact that you are disabled, or is that just for sympathy?

I am a 30% service connected disabled veteran, but I don't throw that up as a defense to anything.

Sticking to the relevant facts is usually best.

When you were already at your car, you should have gotten in and left! Those store security cannot physically touch you unless you are posing a danger to another person.

You went to that back room by your own choice.

You may very well get charged with shoplifting even though you gave the bag to the cust service desk.

The cop should not have written the ticket based on that evidence alone, but now that he did, you will have to defend it.

Is there some relevance here to the fact that you are disabled, or is that just for sympathy?

I am a 30% service connected disabled veteran, but I don't throw that up as a defense to anything.

Sticking to the relevant facts is usually best.