Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on January 01, 2019, 11:21:42 PM

Title: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 01, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
Quote
Quote from: French G. on Today at 04:50:34 AM
Not going to listen to twenty minutes of narcissist talk into the camera. I have never been asked for ID at a Walmart. What is the ID for, what law?

yeah, I skipped that part - gawd that guy is a mope.
the guy in a wheelchair is a disabled vet, tried to buy alcohol at wallyworld - but refused to ID the wife and kids.
he tried to get the policy printed up, cops arrived and arrested him.
He didn't want to present ID to the cops because he broke no laws.
He was waiting for a printed version of policy when the cops showed up.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kcf6fRZJ4Y

Walmart policy is ID everyone, the customer didn't want to ID his wife and kids.
The police can arrest you for violating walmart policy.

this is pretty much pissing me off
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: French G. on January 01, 2019, 11:50:34 PM
 Not going to listen to twenty minutes of narcissist talk into the camera. I have never been asked for ID at a Walmart. What is the ID for, what law?
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: zxcvbob on January 01, 2019, 11:57:42 PM
Not going to listen to twenty minutes of narcissist talk into the camera. I have never been asked for ID at a Walmart. What is the ID for, what law?

I tried to watch it, sped up to 1.5 speed.  Didn't make it to the end.  

Muskogee police are saying that he hit one of the officers.  I wonder if he hit him in the fist with his face?  
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 01, 2019, 11:58:23 PM
Not going to listen to twenty minutes of narcissist talk into the camera. I have never been asked for ID at a Walmart. What is the ID for, what law?

yeah, I skipped that part - gawd that guy is a mope.
the guy in a wheelchair is a disabled vet, tried to buy alcohol at wallyworld - but refused to ID the wife and kids.
he tried to get the policy printed up, cops arrived and arrested him.
He didn't want to present ID to the cops because he broke no laws.
He was waiting for a printed version of policy when the cops showed up.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: TommyGunn on January 02, 2019, 12:06:27 AM
That was a pretty ugly video.

But I take some exceptions;  the police didn't arrest him for violating the store policy,  they arrested him for obstructing a police officer.  I suspect they will hang a "disturbing the peace" charge on him if the woman manager's decription of events is right.  Having once worked at a Wal Mart,  I very strongly suspect there will be a video of that part too,  taken from an overhead perspective.

In most jurisdictions  you are required by law to I.D.  yourself,  atleast tell the officer your name if you have no physical id.  That is probably the genesis of  the problem in the video.

I. M. O.  he should simply have left at the beginning of the event rather than getting upset.  I don't know what the local law is concerning I'd for liquor ,   and id'ing spouse and kids seems unusual and absurd,  but if it is store policy,  the remedy ought to be to go to a different store.

I think --- again, if the store manager is correct -- the  vet has anger problems.

Another issue:  you don't argue with police,  you don't tell them they need to be retrained,  if you believe they're in the wrong,  the  hill to die on is in a courtroom with a lawyer to represent you.  The vet was claiming rights that he did not really have,  or if he did,  were not going to be acknowledged at that point,  but later in the controlled surroundings of a precinct house ..... or in court.

It did seem to me the police were overly aggressive in the conclusion of the video ..... why they had to do that could certainly be questioned and if his disabilities were exacerbated then I smell a law suit in the making ....
but if the manager was going to press charges some type of physical compulsion was inevitable.

I feel bad for the guy, and if I'd been watching it live,  I'd probably be pretty upset about what I was seeing.    The police were tough in the end, maybe unduly so,  but otoh the vet prolonged the incident far longer than it needed to be:  in that respect the police were pretty indulgent.

Sorry if my conclusions are different.   I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

The police may have been wrong in the way they subdued him .... that's for a courtroom.   But,  the bitter truth is,   the vet initiated the process in how he acted.  Just my opinion, IANAL.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 02, 2019, 12:15:50 AM
good points Tommy.
 
  however, all the vet did was use foul language.
that's it.
big effin deal in my world view, not enough to arrest.
I would have told the craptacular faux redhead that "I'm not arresting a dude on Christmas eve on BS charges"
Cops have discretion.
They can turn around and go on break, if they can avoid rushing into Parkland High when the kid was going all kill kill, they can avoid arresting the guy in a wheel
chair.

Paul, in Corinthians, said "just because something is permitted doesn't make it beneficial" ( paraphrased )
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: TommyGunn on January 02, 2019, 12:26:42 AM
good points Tommy.
  
  however, all the vet did was use foul language.
that's it.
big effin deal in my world view, not enough to arrest.
I would have told the craptacular faux redhead that "I'm not arresting a dude on Christmas eve on BS charges"
Cops have discretion.

They can turn around and go on break, if they can avoid rushing into Parkland High when the kid was going all kill kill, they can avoid arresting the guy in a wheel
chair.

Paul, in Corinthians, said "just because something is permitted doesn't make it beneficial" ( paraphrased )

Had I been an officer there,  I might very well have done that too, if permitted.   I'm no expert on police policy,  but it may be a matter of a crime they witnessed,  versus what they believed had happened from a witness's/complainant's description.  If a complainant (store manager in this case, who insisted on pressing the charge [and might be a louse for doing it]) wants to press the charge then, possibly,  the police policy is to arrest the person that's posing the problem.
Again,  I'm really just guessing.   It is also something that might vary from one jurisdiction to another.  I don't know.
I know it was a nasty scene and ended ugly .... I just think the vet, despite his service and his disabilities,  has some responsibility in the matter.   That doesn't make him a felon.  Or a criminal.  I don't know what a court will do,  but I think they will take  whatever mitigating circumstances into account.  I hope.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: zxcvbob on January 02, 2019, 12:35:29 AM
You need to pick your battles, and he chose poorly.  Although what I suspect happened is the clerk told him to wait while she fetched a copy of the policy, but what she told the police was she told him to leave and he refused.  (was she authorized by Walmart to ask someone to leave?)  So the reasonable articulable (sp?) suspicion that allowed them to demand his ID was for trespass.  They should have said so.

There are no good guys here.  That the guy is a vet doesn't seem relevant.  The disabled part is relevant; that's probably why the police waited so long before they maced him and tackled him.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 02, 2019, 02:25:16 AM
I seriously doubt that the laws of any state make it illegal to decline to follow a store's policies (except that, in some states, store signs prohibiting firearms have the force of law). That said, if a responsible store employee (such as a manager) tells a customer to leave, staying on the premises crosses the line into criminal trespass, and you can be arrested for that.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 02, 2019, 08:25:02 AM
You can be arrested for any manner of trumped up charges. Disturbing the peace is a classic. 
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: T.O.M. on January 02, 2019, 09:30:42 AM
This is a stupid situation all the way around...

WalMart policy to card everyone in a group when a purchase is being made...  Maybe if you had a group of young looking people buying a bunch of alcohol, and only one had an ID showing legal age, especially with some of the law suits I've read about against stores for selling alcohol to minors and not taking sufficient steps to avoid the sales.  But you have a family coming through, and you want ID from everyone in the family?  Stupid.

Cops in this situation.  I don't know what happened before the video started.  Maybe the guy had already escalated the situation as things went on.  Maybe it was escalated when the cops arrived.  But this looks to be a good time to escort the guy fro the store and call it done.  Which brings us to...

The guy.  You don't like the store policy.  I get it.  So leave.  Spend your money somewhere else.  I know that there are stores I won't even go into because of certain policies.  There was an appliance store once who told me I couldn't buy a clothes dries from them unless I also bought a metal vent tube/assembly as well.  Said they couldn't be liable for the risk of fire if I was using a plastic tube.  I assured them I already had a metal vent assembly.  They wouldn't budge from store policy.  I walked away from the sale.  This guy was apparently looking for a fight.  Why else would you not either (1) leave without the sale and complain about the policy later or (2) suck it up and show the ID.  Then, when the cops arrive, why refuse to show ID to them unless you are looking for a fight.

Yep, stupid all the way around.  But, if it wasn't for stupid people, I'd probably be out of a job.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: lupinus on January 02, 2019, 09:40:36 AM
He chose poorly

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: MillCreek on January 02, 2019, 10:00:11 AM
When I have someone arrested at my clinics for trespassing, the police are not enforcing my internal policies, they are enforcing the law on trespass.  The police arrive, ask me if I have given, or given in the past, verbal or written trespass notice to the miscreant, and then they take whatever action they deem appropriate. 
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: MechAg94 on January 02, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Also, the store clerk/manager of these big box stores is not the one who can change these policies or deviate from them.  It is a take it or leave it situation.  Best to just leave it if you don't like it.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: zxcvbob on January 02, 2019, 10:29:03 AM
When I have someone arrested at my clinics for trespassing, the police are not enforcing my internal policies, they are enforcing the law on trespass.  The police arrive, ask me if I have given, or given in the past, verbal or written trespass notice to the miscreant, and then they take whatever action they deem appropriate.  

He said Walmart never asked him to leave.  Clerk says she did.  The police never said anything about trespass.  As I said earlier, I think trespass was the RAS they needed to detain him and demand his ID, then charge him with obstruction when he refused.  Why didn't they say so?  I think they wanted to rough the guy up, because what else are you gonna do in Muskogee for excitement -- and they have qualified immunity if anything goes wrong.  (just because the reasonable suspicion of a crime has to be articulable, they don't have to articulate it to *you*; I wish they did.  Chris or Ned can correct me if I'm wrong.)  This could have been avoided by the vet, or de-escalated by the police.  "Sir, you need to leave, or we're gonna have to arrest you for trespassing"

It was a stupid hill to die on.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: TommyGunn on January 02, 2019, 10:35:11 AM
You can be arrested for any manner of trumped up charges. Disturbing the peace is a classic. 

"Disturbing the peace" is a real law in many places.  It is a likely charge this violent vet will face if the matter goes to court and the charge is real law in that jurisdiction.  It is dependant upon the store manager's description of the event being accurate and truthful, and we have, really, only her word.  As I said above,  security video likely exists which may support or refute the mgr's claim.
I suspect, from the vet's behaviour in the video, and his later apologies,  that the manager was being truthful .... but then,  that's my opinion.
I am sympathetic to the belief he should have been escorted out of the store by the police ..... but I have to ask:  based on what transpired in the video,  is it reasonable to believe that would have gone any more quietly or peacefully than what actually happened? ? ? ? ?
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 02, 2019, 09:00:21 PM
i once stopped a guy in a wheelchair mugging an old lady, i wanted to punch him in the face but .... i just couldn't.
I told the old lady to call the police when she got home ( early 90's, no cell phones or available public phones )
and i would just push the guy a few blocks down the hill.

those cops were not required by law to do anything, they could have just told him to leave or pushed the darn chair out themselves.
these are the kind of cops I can't stand.
My brother and late dad - both cops - they both would have found some way to get the guy out of the store without violence.
the cops that waited outside parkland high is the same kind of cops we see here.

the craptacular faux red head was in a foul mood/dude was in a foul mood/ the cops exacerbated the whole dramarama - were they trying to impress the wallyworld gal?
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: RoadKingLarry on January 02, 2019, 09:49:08 PM
Well, it is Muskogee so......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uiW5LEbmlk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uiW5LEbmlk)
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 02, 2019, 10:24:21 PM
Well, it is Muskogee so......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uiW5LEbmlk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uiW5LEbmlk)


awesome!
love that song and only heard of porter wagoner last year or so, what a cool dude he was
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Scout26 on January 03, 2019, 01:33:03 AM
Sorry, he's wrong.  Once Wal-mart said they wanted to ban (trespass him) he has to give his ID so the Police can put it in their report.  That way if he goes back, he can be arrested for criminal trespass.   Sorry, them's the rules.  The police were NOT enforcing Wal-mart policy.  They were enforcing the trespass law.  He has to give his name at point.  Since he refused, he's obstructing justice.

He's an ass and richly earned his arrest and court date.   Argue in court, not at the scene.

And vet, disabled or otherwise doesn't excuse stupidity and bad behavior.

Plus it's Wal-mart.  You got to go pretty damn far over the line to get them to call the police on you....
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: zxcvbob on January 03, 2019, 10:08:25 AM
Sorry, he's wrong.  Once Wal-mart said they wanted to ban (trespass him) he has to give his ID so the Police can put it in their report.  That way if he goes back, he can be arrested for criminal trespass.   Sorry, them's the rules.  The police were NOT enforcing Wal-mart policy.  They were enforcing the trespass law.  He has to give his name at point.  Since he refused, he's obstructing justice.

He's an ass and richly earned his arrest and court date.   Argue in court, not at the scene.

And vet, disabled or otherwise doesn't excuse stupidity and bad behavior.

Plus it's Wal-mart.  You got to go pretty damn far over the line to get them to call the police on you....

This probably could have been avoided if the police had just told him why he was being detained; they never did that until after he was arrested.  They wanted to arrest him from the start because he was an ass, IMHO it just took them a while to figure out how to physically take him into custody because of the wheelchair.

I wonder how much liability (legally or morally) the mope narrating the first few minutes of the video has?  Is this one of his fans?  It sounded like it.  What kind of bad legal advice has he been giving?
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 03, 2019, 10:57:23 PM
Sorry, he's wrong.  Once Wal-mart said they wanted to ban (trespass him) he has to give his ID so the Police can put it in their report.  That way if he goes back, he can be arrested for criminal trespass.   Sorry, them's the rules.  The police were NOT enforcing Wal-mart policy.  They were enforcing the trespass law.  He has to give his name at point.  Since he refused, he's obstructing justice.

He's an ass and richly earned his arrest and court date.   Argue in court, not at the scene.

And vet, disabled or otherwise doesn't excuse stupidity and bad behavior.

Plus it's Wal-mart.  You got to go pretty damn far over the line to get them to call the police on you....

but they never tresspassed him until way after the initial encounter, being foul mouthed while rude etc-is not a crime-
also,  he was going to leave, he apologized and asked if he could just leave but the cops were determined to arrest him.
they don't "have" to do anything and quite often they don't.
if they had told fauxred "we will escort him out, lets drop it" it would have been over.
they wanted to assert their authority.
When I was a cab driver, i constantly caught the scofflaws who ran without paying and the cops never ID'd them or arrested them like they should have.
but when I finally got fed up with me catch they release I beat the tar out of one and got arrested ( case dismissed, but i still got the ride )
...smarter cops would have dropped it.
How does society benefit from this debacle, the pd/walmart/mayors office is being innundated with angry calls - tying up the 911 call center.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 03, 2019, 11:10:39 PM
Sorry, he's wrong.  Once Wal-mart said they wanted to ban (trespass him) he has to give his ID so the Police can put it in their report.  That way if he goes back, he can be arrested for criminal trespass.   Sorry, them's the rules.  The police were NOT enforcing Wal-mart policy.  They were enforcing the trespass law.  He has to give his name at point.  Since he refused, he's obstructing justice.

He's an ass and richly earned his arrest and court date.   Argue in court, not at the scene.

And vet, disabled or otherwise doesn't excuse stupidity and bad behavior.

Plus it's Wal-mart.  You got to go pretty damn far over the line to get them to call the police on you....

i just watched that part, when there was one cop on scene he say "well, you're gonna back up walmart on that policy so i will just leave"

he had not been trespassed , was just simply not buying anything - and being detained simply because the cop wanted ID, even tho at that point he had not done anything criminal, it is not a stop and id state-you have to be doing something criminal.
once he stood his ground they coached faux red into tresspassing him - to give them RAS to arrest.
its all on video, he is going to collect
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: 230RN on January 04, 2019, 12:51:19 AM
Take the broad view.  The "policy," was formulated to protect the company, written or not, "just in case" something about ages of the group involved got legally funny and the store gets fined or closed down for some legal violations.

Like aiding a minor to consume alcohol or whatever.  Who knows, with the thousands of local and State laws WRT sale of alcohol.

If they're fined, your prices go up.  If they're closed down, that's inconvenient for you and you may have to pay higher prices anyway elsewhere.

There.  I spelled it out for you: go with the flow and *expletive deleted*ck your personal trigger points.

The guy was apparently a jerk.  Don't be one, too.

Maybe the cops were jerks, too.  I don't know; I wasn't there.  I do know it was an assholey situation from the word go.

Terry
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 04, 2019, 02:44:10 AM
The guy may well win if he takes it to court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Quote
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[1]

The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.

Note that the article perpetuates the myth of "reasonable articulable suspicion." That's NOT what Terry v. Ohio said. What it actually said was "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts." They are not the same.

Also, IIRC, Hiibel ruled that the individual was required to identify himself -- as in "My name Jose Jimenez" -- I don't think Hiibel requires the production of any physical indentication document, even in those states where identification is required.

Quote
The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that "identify himself" to mean to merely state his name.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 04, 2019, 03:41:44 AM
This incident went down in Muskogee, OK? If so, the cops were sucking wind.

Terry v. Ohio allows a brief stop if there is a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed. Terry does not provide grounds for demanding identification outside those narrow parameters. And, if I understand it correctly, Terry is satisfied if the subject just says "My name Jose Jimenez" (if, of course, that's his name). Terry does not appear to require production of a physical document.

Hiibel (a Supreme Court case building on Terry) involves state ID laws. Only 23 states have them, and only a few require production of a physical document. Oklahoma is not one of the 23.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Scout26 on January 04, 2019, 07:31:36 AM
Right at about 3:44 the manager says he want him "banned" or trespassed from the store.  At that point refusing to give his name is obstruction.

Now, we only have the latter part of the video after the police arrive.  So I can only assume the guy was such a royal prick to cause Wal-Mart to call  the police on him PRIOR to the start of the video.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 04, 2019, 08:32:42 AM
Still depends on how the criminal trespass law is written for Oklahoma. In many states, the first time is only ejection, not a criminal offense. If he is given notice not to darken their doors again, and he subsequently returns, that's when it becomes criminal trespass.

We don't have enough information. I agree the guy acted like to jerk. I'm not convinced that he did anything criminal.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 04, 2019, 08:40:15 AM
Oklahoma statute:

Quote
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
§21-1835.1. Entry or presence upon premises of place of business of persons convicted of certain crimes.
Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-1835.1 (2014)

A. Every person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity engaged in any public business, trade, or profession of any kind wherein merchandise, goods or services are offered for sale may forbid the entry or presence of any person upon the premises of the place of business, if the person has been convicted of a crime involving entry onto or criminal acts occurring upon any real property owned, leased, or under the control of such person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. Such crimes shall include, but are not limited to, shoplifting, vandalism, and disturbing the peace while upon the premises of any place of business of the person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.

B. In order to exercise the authority conferred by subsection A of this section, the owner or an agent of the owner of a public business, trade, or profession must notify the person whom the owner or agent desires to prohibit from such owner's place of business.

C. No person shall willfully enter or remain upon the premises after being expressly forbidden to do so in the manner provided for in this section. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of trespass and shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) or by confinement in the county jail for a term of not more than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

D. The provisions of this act shall not preclude any other remedy allowed by law.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2014/title-21/section-21-1835.1/
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: HeroHog on January 04, 2019, 01:49:20 PM
Quote
A. Every person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity engaged in any public business, trade, or profession of any kind wherein merchandise, goods or services are offered for sale may forbid the entry or presence of any person upon the premises of the place of business, if the person has been convicted of a crime involving entry onto or criminal acts occurring upon any real property owned, leased, or under the control of such person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. Such crimes shall include, but are not limited to, shoplifting, vandalism, and disturbing the peace while upon the premises of any place of business of the person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.

So, get back to me when you can show that I have been CONVICTED of a crime then?
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 05, 2019, 12:06:20 AM
Right at about 3:44 the manager says he want him "banned" or trespassed from the store.  At that point refusing to give his name is obstruction.

Now, we only have the latter part of the video after the police arrive.  So I can only assume the guy was such a royal prick to cause Wal-Mart to call  the police on him PRIOR to the start of the video.

ah, but he actually gives his name-just not his ID-perfectly legal.
A: beginning of video 1 cop.
cop detains him unlawfully for ID
B: more cops, argument ensues, he identifies himself, still unlawfully detained.
C: cops, while being videotaped ask fauxRed if she "would like to tresspass him/charge him with disorderly"
D: Arrest him, rather than allow him to leave which he had asked to do a few times.
Was he a jerk?
Absolutely - he probably really needed a drink, really needs to walk, really needs to be treated with courtesy and respect and really needs to evaluate the hills he dies for.
I think the cops were unjust/unwise/unlawful.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: dogmush on January 05, 2019, 08:06:22 AM
The cops could have handled it better, but here's the issue: the genesis of the whole situation rests squarely on his shoulders.

Walmart is allowed to have their policies. Once he had decided that he didn't want to comply with Walmart's policy on selling their stuff, he should have left. 

Acting like an entitled ass, as if Walmart is somehow obligated to sell him things, obligated to explain anything to his satisfaction,  or that the police are obligated to explain anything to him is what got him in this situation.

The fact that he was still there, arguing, after the time it took the first cop to show up is where he went wrong, and why the lion's share of the consequences are on him. 
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 05, 2019, 04:31:58 PM
The cops could have handled it better, but here's the issue: the genesis of the whole situation rests squarely on his shoulders.

Walmart is allowed to have their policies. Once he had decided that he didn't want to comply with Walmart's policy on selling their stuff, he should have left. 

Acting like an entitled ass, as if Walmart is somehow obligated to sell him things, obligated to explain anything to his satisfaction,  or that the police are obligated to explain anything to him is what got him in this situation.

The fact that he was still there, arguing, after the time it took the first cop to show up is where he went wrong, and why the lion's share of the consequences are on him. 


for the most part, I agree-however he asked for a printed copy of their policy and they told him they would get it, while he was waiting that is when the cops came.
I guess that's legal but underhanded.
So, I guess I agree that it is his fault , however the police are not supposed to punish you for being a dumb jerk and instead of ending the situation they coached fauxRed into pressing charges and apparently severely injured the guy.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: tokugawa on January 05, 2019, 06:23:33 PM
The guys crime was not being subservient enough.
 
This sort of reminds me of the nurse that got manhandled and arrested because she would not do the cops bidding to draw blood from a suspect.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: gunsmith on January 07, 2019, 09:18:14 PM
The guys crime was not being subservient enough.
 
This sort of reminds me of the nurse that got manhandled and arrested because she would not do the cops bidding to draw blood from a suspect.

kinda my feeling too
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: RoadKingLarry on January 07, 2019, 09:58:32 PM
The guys crime was not being subservient enough.
 
This sort of reminds me of the nurse that got manhandled and arrested because she would not do the cops bidding to draw blood from a suspect.

I don't remember hearing the final (if any) outcome of that little side show.
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 08, 2019, 12:08:13 AM
I don't remember hearing the final (if any) outcome of that little side show.


The nurse wasn't charged, and the cop lost his job.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/detective-jeff-payne-fired-nurse-alex-wubbels-video/
Title: Re: Wal Mart policy is now enforced by law
Post by: Scout26 on January 08, 2019, 03:20:36 PM
The guys crime was not being subservient enough.
 
This sort of reminds me of the nurse that got manhandled and arrested because she would not do the cops bidding to draw blood from a suspect.

The guys crime was being a such a jerkwad in wal-mart that they had to call the cops on him.  We don't know what he did prior to the arrival of the Po-po and the video, but it was enough that Wal-mart decided that he was so out of control that police were needed to handle it.

Again, don't be a *expletive deleted*tard in walmart and the police don't get called on you.