# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Refusal to show receipt when leaving walmart..

## RichieLibertarian

Just curious on what others here think on the issue....Whenever I shop at walmart, I make it my mission to never show my receipt(always in a polite and respectful manner) to the greeter/ receipt-checker on the way out...I dont do this to annoy anyone on purpose or to intentionally start a scene...I do so simply out of principle. 1) to prevent myself from being subjected to an unwanted search of items that are now MY property, 2) to bypass the line of sheep that are willing to go through an unnecessary search, and 3) although I feel that it is within their power to ASK to see my receipt, they cannot FORCE me to show my receipt unless there is reasonable suspicion that I may have stole something...

I realize that If I shopped at Costco, or Sams Club, I would be required to show my receipt because that was part of the agreement when I signed up for my membership and therefore voluntarily waived my right to not show my receipt.....If I failed to comply, I deserve to have my membership revoked, for good reason....But at walmart, no agreement is made of any kind and I did not voluntarily waive any of my rights....

Just wondering what everybodys 2 cents are and if anybody else does this

----------


## low preference guy

dude come on. you're just being an ass to old ladies with weak memories. sure, it's within your rights to make a scene, but i'm not sure you'll get anything good out of it. if you have to sign an agreement every time you shop, it's gonna be worse for you because of the time you'll waste.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Just curious on what others here think on the issue....Whenever I shop at walmart, I make it my mission to never show my receipt to the greeter/ receipt-checker on the way out...I dont do this to annoy anyone on purpose or to intentionally start a scene...I do so simply out of principle. 1) to prevent myself from being subjected to an unwanted search of items that are now MY property, 2) to bypass the line of sheep that are willing to go through an unnecessary search, and 3) although I feel that it is within their power to ASK to see my receipt, they cannot FORCE me to show my receipt unless there is reasonable suspicion that I may have stole something...
> 
> I realize that If I shopped at Costco, or Sams Club, I would be required to show my receipt because that was part of the agreement when I signed up for my membership and therefore voluntarily waived my right to not show my receipt.....If I failed to comply, I deserve to have my membership revoked, for good reason....But at walmart, no agreement is made of any kind and I did not voluntarily waive any of my rights....
> 
> Just wondering what everybodys 2 cents are and if anybody else does this


It's private property. If their policy is to request receipts, I think it could be reasonably concluded that you have accepted that policy in order to shop there. I don't think you're outside of your rights to refuse -- but they would be within their rights were they to demand you either show the receipt or surrender the goods.

If you find that that is not their policy, or you are willing to risk it, you can continue to refuse. You're not outside of your rights to do so. That's my view anyhow.

Of course, I agree with the above poster, that it's poor behavior. Just because you have a right does not mean it should be exercised. I can walk down the street yelling "****  you" at every person I meet, but that's not responsible or appropriate behavior.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

I dont usually show my receipt either but thats because they dont usually ask to see my receipt.. They know how to profile for the most part and who is suspicious.. But if they want to see my receipt.. I show them.. Its their property and their policy and Im shopping there.. 

Its not a big deal to me.. If it ever becomes a big deal I just wont shop there,

----------


## jack555

> It's private property. If their policy is to request receipts, I think it could be reasonably concluded that you have accepted that policy in order to shop there. I don't think you're outside of your rights to refuse -- but they would be within their rights were they to demand you either show the receipt or surrender the goods.
> 
> If you find that that is not their policy, or you are willing to risk it, you can continue to refuse. You're not outside of your rights to do so. That's my view anyhow.
> 
> Of course, I agree with the above poster, that it's poor behavior. Just because you have a right does not mean it should be exercised. I can walk down the street yelling "****  you" at every person I meet, but that's not responsible or appropriate behavior.


Absolutely wrong.

So lets say I invite you over for tea. I go in the kitchen. I come back and ask you to show me whats in your back pack because I'm worried you stole something. You do not have to show me what is in your backpack. I can ask you to leave but I have no right to search you or steal your belongings just because you are on my property.

----------


## Number19

> Just curious on what others here think on the issue....Whenever I shop at walmart, I make it my mission to never show my receipt to the greeter/ receipt-checker on the way out...I dont do this to annoy anyone on purpose or to intentionally start a scene...I do so simply out of principle. 1) to prevent myself from being subjected to an unwanted search of items that are now MY property, 2) to bypass the line of sheep that are willing to go through an unnecessary search, and 3) although I feel that it is within their power to ASK to see my receipt, they cannot FORCE me to show my receipt unless there is reasonable suspicion that I may have stole something...
> 
> I realize that If I shopped at Costco, or Sams Club, I would be required to show my receipt because that was part of the agreement when I signed up for my membership and therefore voluntarily waived my right to not show my receipt.....If I failed to comply, I deserve to have my membership revoked, for good reason....But at walmart, no agreement is made of any kind and I did not voluntarily waive any of my rights....
> 
> Just wondering what everybodys 2 cents are and if anybody else does this


Sorry, I disagree. You knowingly shopped the store knowing what the policy was about showing the receipt on exit. This is an implied contract. Take the action you do at your own risk of consequences. Why are you shopping at Walmart, anyhow? Just to cause trouble? You have a warped sense of what constitutes rights. Walmart is privately owned and the Right of ownership allows them to set store policy. If you do not wish to abide by these policies, then you have the right to not give them your patronage. But you do not have a right to shop there and then claim a right to not abide by store policy.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> dude come on. you're just being an ass to old ladies with weak memories. sure, it's within your rights to make a scene, but i'm not sure you'll get anything good out of it. if you have to sign an agreement every time you shop, it's gonna be worse for you because of the time you'll waste.


fyi, the walmart I go to is in north jersey, a heavily populated area, with high traffic volume (nothing but young people working at the store i shop, many of them obnoxious) where they def. do not have some helpless old lady working the lines, out of pity, i would prob just save her the grief.....

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> It's private property. If their policy is to request receipts, I think it could be reasonably concluded that you have accepted that policy in order to shop there. I don't think you're outside of your rights to refuse -- but they would be within their rights were they to demand you either show the receipt or surrender the goods.
> 
> If you find that that is not their policy, or you are willing to risk it, you can continue to refuse. You're not outside of your rights to do so. That's my view anyhow.
> 
> Of course, I agree with the above poster, that it's poor behavior. Just because you have a right does not mean it should be exercised. I can walk down the street yelling "****  you" at every person I meet, but that's not responsible or appropriate behavior.



Thats the thing, once money exchanges hands, those goods now become my property and I believe they have no right to look at my property unless i previously consented...

----------


## freshjiva

Wow, someone needs to get laid...

----------


## low preference guy

> Thats the thing, once money exchanges hands, those goods now become my property and I believe they have no right to look at my property unless i previously consented...


True, they have no right. But it's better to do it informally the way it is than asking every customer agree to a verbal contract that they will show their receipts if asked.

If I were the owner, I would answer you this: You're right sir, we have no right to ask you for your receipt. We apologize. From now on, however, you are banned from Walmart nationwide, and you'll never shop in our stores again. This is private property, and from now on you won't be allowed here.

----------


## Matt Collins

I agree completely with the OP. But I am polite about it. If they try and stop me, my mannerisims are such that they rarely do, I usually just hold up the receipt and continue to walk. That way they can see that I have a receipt and they don't try to bother and stop me.

----------


## jack555

> Sorry, I disagree. You knowingly shopped the store knowing what the policy was about showing the receipt on exit. This is an implied contract. Take the action you do at your own risk of consequences. Why are you shopping at Walmart, anyhow? Just to cause trouble? You have a warped sense of what constitutes rights. Walmart is privately owned and the Right of ownership allows them to set store policy. If you do not wish to abide by these policies, then you have the right to not give them your patronage. But you do not have a right to shop there and then claim a right to not abide by store policy.



There are some rights you do not give up by contract, and i doubt there is a contract here anyways. If walmarts policy says they can rape you and you stop there it does not make it legal for them to rape you. I find it extremely hard to believe that a private company has a right to search your belongings just because you are on their property.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It's private property. If their policy is to request receipts, I think it could be reasonably concluded that you have accepted that policy in order to shop there. I don't think you're outside of your rights to refuse -- but they would be within their rights were they to demand you either show the receipt or surrender the goods.


No, they can't stop or hold you at all.


.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> So lets say I invite you over for tea. I go in the kitchen. I come back and ask you to show me whats in your back pack because I'm worried you stole something. You do not have to show me what is in your backpack. I can ask you to leave but I have no right to search you or steal your belongings just because you are on my property.


That's a good analogy. I think I should adjust and clarify what I first said.

If I knew, prior to coming over, that you require all your guests to show what's in their backpack, I am obligated to comply.

If I did not know, and was not clearly informed, I have a right to leave without showing, but I should never enter your home again unless I am prepared to empty my backpack.

In reality, I would probably show you the contents of my backpack, and then not visit again, and our friendship would probably be damaged.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> Wow, someone needs to get laid...



lol  speak for yourself....

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> True, they have no right. But it's better to do it informally the way it is than asking every customer agree to a verbal contract that they will show their receipts if asked.
> 
> If I were the owner, I would answer you this: You're right sir, we have no right to ask you for your receipt. We apologize. From now on, however, you are banned from Walmart nationwide, and you'll never shop in our stores again. This is private property, and from now on you won't be allowed here.


thats fine,   i would happily comply and take my money elsewhere....

----------


## low preference guy

> thats fine,   i would happily comply and take my money elsewhere....


isn't that a bit shortsighted? if you are ever in a emergency for anything, and you have a close walmart.. you'll have to go somewhere else. if you move to a small town and only walmart have certain things you need, you might need to travel an hour or plan ahead to get those things. maybe you have a lot of free time and like driving and you know that the future will stay the same. i respect your position, but as for me, i'll just show the ticket.

----------


## tremendoustie

> thats fine,   i would happily comply and take my money elsewhere....


I think if they are asking for receipts you should assume that it is required to shop there in the future. If you want to clarify, you could talk to a manager, and ask him if he would like you to continue to shop there, given that you plan to refuse to show receipts.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> isn't that a bit shortsighted? if you are ever in a emergency for anything, and you have a close walmart.. you'll have to go somewhere else. if you move to a small town and only walmart have certain things you need, you might need to travel an hour or plan ahead to get those things. maybe you have a lot of free time and like driving and you know that the future will stay the same. i respect your position, but as for me, i'll just show the ticket.



perhaps if i lived in a small town where walmart was king, but i live in the nyc metro area and realistically dont see myself moving....I could shop at virtually any store within  a short distance...So if I was effectively banned from walmart, it really wouldnt impact my life negatively....

----------


## low preference guy

> I think if they are asking for receipts you should assume that it is required to shop there in the future. If you want to clarify, you could talk to a manager, and ask him if he would like you to continue to shop there, given that you plan to refuse to show receipts.


you can't assume that. there should be an explicit contract, at least a verbal one in which you agree to show the receipts.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> I think if they are asking for receipts you should assume that it is required to shop there in the future. If you want to clarify, you could talk to a manager, and ask him if he would like you to continue to shop there, given that you plan to refuse to show receipts.



thats honestly not a bad idea....it would be interesting to get their input on the situation,,,,

----------


## low preference guy

> thats honestly not a bad idea....it would be interesting to get their input on the situation,,,,


yeah. tell us what happens.

----------


## tremendoustie

> you can't assume that. there should be an explicit contract, at least a verbal one in which you agree to show the receipts.


I think you're being silly. If they are asking for receipts, clearly this is something they expect of their customers. I feel a refusal to talk to a manager would be an attempt to skirt the policy, and continue to use the property while violating the known policies of the property owner.

Clearly Walmart expects those who use its property to show receipts. If you want to continue to use Walmart without abiding by this rule, you should get explicit permission.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

The point of the OP was why have we gone to a situation, in a supposedly free republic that prioritizes liberty and rights, where the 'default' policy is one of surrendering to warrantless searches at every point of our personal transactions? 

It's not just the receipt check. We walk into a store and get treated like a shoplifter without probable cause through store cameras, sensors detecting for tagged merchandise, credit checks done upon every credit card swipe, etc.  We should have the expectation that we can set aside unconscionable contract clauses and policies that cripples our right to be secure in our personal effects, not the current situation where each purchase makes us instantly subject to a warrantless inspection.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Wow, someone needs to get laid...


Don't we all? 


.

----------


## tremendoustie

> The point of the OP was why have we gone to a situation, in a supposedly free republic that prioritizes liberty and rights, where the 'default' policy is one of surrendering to warrantless searches at every point of our personal transactions? 
> 
> It's not just the receipt check. We walk into a store and get treated like a shoplifter without probable cause through store cameras, sensors detecting for tagged merchandise, credit checks done upon every credit card swipe, etc.  We should have the expectation that we can set aside unconscionable contract clauses and policies that set our right to be secure in our personal effects, not the current situation where each purchase makes us instantly subject to a warrantless inspection.


If this is your preference -- it's mine as well, though not a top priority -- then I suggest you only patronize businesses which do not engage in the behavior of which you disapprove.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> The point of the OP was why have we gone to a situation, in a supposedly free republic that prioritizes liberty and rights, where the 'default' policy is one of surrendering to warrantless searches at every point of our personal transactions? 
> 
> It's not just the receipt check. We walk into a store and get treated like a shoplifter without probable cause through store cameras, sensors detecting for tagged merchandise, credit checks done upon every credit card swipe, etc.  We should have the expectation that we can set aside unconscionable contract clauses and policies that set our right to be secure in our personal effects, not the current situation where each purchase makes us instantly subject to a warrantless inspection.


+1     nicely worded

----------


## low preference guy

> I think you're being silly. If they are asking for receipts, clearly this is something they expect of their customers. I feel your refusal to talk to a manager is an attempt to skirt the policy, and continue to use the property while violating the known policies of the property owner.
> 
> Clearly Walmart expects those who use its property to show receipts. If you want to continue to use Walmart without abiding by this rule, you should get explicit permission.


i'm not the OP. i said i'd just show the receipts, read my posts.

i'm talking about the legal perspective. there is no legal tacit agreement from seeing that they request receipts. that's like saying i'm a big pimp, everyone knows i get touchy with every girl that comes home, if someone agrees to be in my house, i expect to get close to you, so you're legally required to accept that. 

it doesn't make sense. the expectations of the owner of property in the absent of an explicit agreement are not binding.

----------


## dannno

> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> So lets say I invite you over for tea. I go in the kitchen. I come back and ask you to show me whats in your back pack because I'm worried you stole something. You do not have to show me what is in your backpack. I can ask you to leave but I have no right to search you or steal your belongings just because you are on my property.


Interesting..

----------


## jack555

> That's a good analogy. I think I should adjust and clarify what I first said.
> 
> If I knew, prior to coming over, that you require all your guests to show what's in their backpack, I am obligated to comply.
> 
> If I did not know, and was not clearly informed, I have a right to leave without showing, but I should never enter your home again unless I am prepared to empty my backpack.
> 
> In reality, I would probably show you the contents of my backpack, and then not visit again, and our friendship would probably be damaged.



That is still not correct and I don't know what would give you this idea.

You are not obligated to comply with rules just because you are on private property. If you break rules you may be asked to leave. If you break laws you may be arrested. However you are not subject to a search by employees of a private company.

edit- Of course a company can refuse to let you in unless you show them your belongings though...

----------


## Cowlesy

ahhh, libertarians...solving the world's problems one issue at a time

----------


## low preference guy

does this thread belong in general politics?

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

I never had a problem with it. They usually only ask when your leaving with something thats not in a bag, like a TV or something in a big box.

----------


## Taco John

I don't have a problem with showing my receipt on the way out the door.  I've always found this to be a reasonable search - particularly because I know what to expect going in.  I could see refusing to show it once, and then making a decision never to shop there again out of principle.  But it doesn't show too much dedication to principle to know that they protect themselves in this manner, and then continue to shop there.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Jesus, just stop shopping at that hellhole.  Walmart wouldn't exist if it weren't for oppressed Chinese making all that $#@! halfway around the world.

----------


## Nanerbeet

The whole point of issuing a receipt _at any store_ is so that _you_ can prove you purchased the items.  Without the receipt, the store manager has every right to call security and have you detained.


Just show the $#@!ing receipt when they ask for it unless you want trouble.

----------


## kpitcher

I try to avoid Walmart as much as possible. If only Costco would have a store nearby so I'd have an alternative to Sams. My favorite article on how Walmart is the biggest bully around involves Vlasic and gallon jars of pickles. http://www.fastcompany.com/node/47593/print

----------


## Mahkato

The prices are lower because they demand receipts, and surveil the store with cameras, and put electronic security devices on stuff. If you can't tolerate that invasion of your privacy, then go elsewhere and pay the higher prices.

The _first_ time you go to a store and they demand a receipt, I would say that you are not outside of your rights to refuse. But if you go back there ever again, that's your own fault, so you should comply.

----------


## silus

Well, regardless of what anyone thinks about the thread starter, this gives me the excuse I need to skip the retarded lines they have for showing receipts.

----------


## silus

> The whole point of issuing a receipt _at any store_ is so that _you_ can prove you purchased the items.  Without the receipt, the store manager has every right to call security and have you detained.
> 
> 
> Just show the $#@!ing receipt when they ask for it unless you want trouble.


What if I decided to throw away my receipt after the purchase?  Just sayin...

----------


## BlackTerrel

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
          ------------Thomas Jefferson.

In other words: choose your battles man.  You can't fight everyone.  This is one to avoid.

----------


## slothman

> The whole point of issuing a receipt _at any store_ is so that _you_ can prove you purchased the items.  Without the receipt, the store manager has every right to call security and have you detained.
> 
> Just show the $#@!ing receipt when they ask for it unless you want trouble.


If it is private property then that can only call the police id you don't leave.
Otherwise it is kidnapping.

I have an easy remedy; I don't shop there.
I don't mind higher prices for a better store.

----------


## TrayC

> It's private property.


Damn right! 

You have the obligation to prove you bought the items when you're on THEIR property.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

I would advocate you take advantage of the present system and use it to your advantage.  After all you do pay for the courts.  Sue on grounds of discrimination.  Get a nice settlement and invest the money in liberty enterprise.  If hot coffee is worth a couple million search or detainment might be worth more.

----------


## angelatc

> Just curious on what others here think on the issue....Whenever I shop at walmart, I make it my mission to never show my receipt(always in a polite and respectful manner) to the greeter/ receipt-checker on the way out...
> Just wondering what everybodys 2 cents are and if anybody else does this


I do the same thing because I think it is atrocious to be treated like a thief. Before I quit flying, I stopped flying Southwest for some bull$#@! we went through at Austin.

You do not have to show them the receipt. They do not have the right to detain you for not showing the receipt.  They have the right to detain you while waiting for the police to arrive if they suspect you for shoplifting, but if they are wrong, it is unlawful detention and you can sue them.

Best if you at least have your cell phone camera running to capture the audio unless you're in a state that doesn't allow that.

----------


## FrankRep

This is much more important than Abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Continue.

----------


## angelatc

> Thats the thing, once money exchanges hands, those goods now become my property and I believe they have no right to look at my property unless i previously consented...


Slothman is right.

My husband works retail, and he gets annual classes from the lawyers about such things.  You are right. THey can detain you and have to police search you, but if you aren't shoplifting they're guilty of unlawful detention.

I am really both shocked and sad to see how many young people have been brainwashed into thinking this is acceptable behavior.

----------


## angelatc

> This is much more important than Abolishing the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Continue.


Is there a "Frank Rule" about only fighting one battle at a time? If not, whats your point?

----------


## angelatc

> Damn right! 
> 
> You have the obligation to prove you bought the items when you're on THEIR property.


No, you actually don't. You have the right to leave their property entirely unhindered.

----------


## angelatc

> "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
>           ------------Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> In other words: choose your battles man.  You can't fight everyone.  This is one to avoid.


This is actually one that is easy to win, and pays a tidy settlement to boot.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I agree completely with the OP. But I am polite about it. If they try and stop me, my mannerisims are such that they rarely do, I usually just hold up the receipt and continue to walk. That way they can see that I have a receipt and they don't try to bother and stop me.


You realize we now need a picture of you with a Wal-Mart door greeter.

----------


## angelatc

> i'm not the OP. i said i'd just show the receipts, read my posts.
> 
> i'm talking about the legal perspective. there is no legal tacit agreement from seeing that they request receipts. .


They don't need a policy to ask. They're just not allowed to detain you simply for refusing to show the receipt.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Walmart sucks, why are you shopping there?

----------


## noxagol

A lot of you think that the constitution is applying to private parties. It doesn't, it only applies to the government. 

If you enter a place where it is common knowledge you will get searched, you must submit to the search or you are trespassing.

If there is a giant sign that says, YOU WILL BE RAPED UPON ENTERING, then if you want to enter, you must submit to being raped (taken from an example earlier). Your choices are to either get raped or go somewhere else. 

A property owner can make you give up any and all rights they deem fit, so long as you agree to it.

The person at the door has no idea if you paid for the stuff in your bags or not. Do you realize how many people keep bags from previous visits, walk in with them, put stuff in the bags, and then walk out? A lot (Yes I work at walmart). 

The person at the door cannot read your 8 point type font on your receipt from 10 feet away. Do you realize how many people have taken something and walked out the door with it while just flashing an old receipt and refusing to walk out.

Until you prove the stuff is paid for, they have no idea. They don't need a warrant. They don't need your permission as you gave it to them when you walked in. It is pretty common knowledge that places like this occasionally ask for a receipt.

That said, there is a pretty specific criteria for asking for a receipt and it doesn't happen all that often (I work at walmart so yes I do know). Honestly, people make too much of a stink over this kind of $#@!. It's 5 seconds of standing and waiting for them to make sure you paid for some stuff. You should not be mad at walmart but all the lowlife $#@!tards that choose to steal from them that made them adopt such policies to protect their property.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ahhh, libertarians...solving the world's problems one issue at a time


Damn, Trololololololol Guy is no more...

----------


## libertyjam

> Damn right! 
> 
> You have the obligation to prove you bought the items when you're on THEIR property.


Absolutely wrong.

----------


## angelatc

> A lot of you think that the constitution is applying to private parties. It doesn't, it only applies to the government. 
> 
> If you enter a place where it is common knowledge you will get searched, you must submit to the search or you are trespassing.


That is so absolutely wrong. It has nothing to do with the constitution, Iy has to do with statutes covering kidnapping and unlawful detainment.

 They have no legal right to touch you or hold you in any manner unless they suspect you are shoplifting. Refusing to dig out your receipt is not just cause for suspicion.

If they choose to hold you, they can only do so while waiting for the police to arrive. 

If you were not stealing, you can sue them for unlawful detainment and possibly assault and battery.  They will settle out of court.

Target has changed their security system, but they used to have big square tags that would go off if you went out before the cashier deactivated them.  Not sure why, but the deactivation would only last a little while. I used to carry one of those in my purse, thus setting off their alarms both on my wat in and on my way out.

I would also occasionally peel them off the parking lot and discreetly affix them to my shopping cart to my shopping cart before leaving.

----------


## Mahkato

You are entering the store's private property for the purpose of purchasing some of their property (retail goods) from them. As such, it is reasonable to assume that both parties (you and Wal-mart) are going to take certain steps to ensure that there is no fraud in the transaction. Wal-mart has a reputation to uphold (lest they lose business from earning a bad reputation) so they are very unlikely to knowingly cheat you. You and all 50 brazillion other customer, however, have comparatively little to lose from attempting to cheat them. It is because of this imbalance that they need to take steps which are otherwise bad business (treating you guilty until proven innocent) in order to keep from getting constantly defrauded by their customers.

----------


## Zatch

Maybe you should just walk out of the store without paying. The cashier has no right to scan all your crap and see what your buying! TYRANNY! LOL

----------


## angelatc

> You are entering the store's private property for the purpose of purchasing some of their property (retail goods) from them. As such, it is reasonable to assume that both parties (you and Wal-mart) are going to take certain steps to ensure that there is no fraud in the transaction.


You can keep thinking that all you want, but Wal-Mart policy doesn't override criminal statute.

They can't touch you or detain you because you don't show them the receipt. It is illegal for them to touch you or detain you for refusing to show them the receipt.

They can physically detain you only of they actually observed you stealing.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Damn, Trololololololol Guy is no more...


Eat your damn oatmeal.

----------


## angelatc

> Maybe you should just walk out of the store without paying. The cashier has no right to scan all your crap and see what your buying! TYRANNY!


If you do that, you are stealing, and they then have the right to detain you.

I'm sure Wal-Mart appreciates that you're absolutely so willing to give them rights that they don't actually have though.

----------


## ARealConservative

shoplifting costs all of us money in the long run.

I think it is idiotic to make an issue out of this.  

I second the poster that quipped that someone need to get laid.

----------


## FrankRep

> Eat your damn oatmeal.


 awesome

----------


## amy31416

> BEIJING  A woman in eastern China was allegedly beaten to death by five employees of a Wal-Mart store who accused her of shoplifting, a police report and state media said Tuesday.
> Wal-Mart is not all smiles...
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart is not all smiles...
> 
> Police have arrested two employees from the store in Jiangxi province, while three others are being investigated, Jingdezhen city police said in a report on their website.
> 
> ...




This woman was lucky she stole from a US Walmart.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> shoplifting costs all of us money in the long run.
> 
> I think it is idiotic to make an issue out of this.  
> 
> I second the poster that quipped that someone need to get laid.


If we don't fight off even the little tyrannies turning us into the prison/slave/surveillance state, where will we get the energy to combat the big ones? Or for that matter, to get laid?

----------


## MelissaWV

This would be solved with a minor adjustment to how these stores are built.  There are many stores where, once you pay, your only option is to exit.  You must pass through a checkout line (or an empty "exit only" row, through which one would expect people to walk through without carts or shopping bags) to get out.  Exchanges are made at a front desk, where store shopping bags are cheerfully discarded or recycled on behalf of the patron (to avoid them going through the store and refilling them).

Now all that's required is a watchful front-end coordinator who will notice if someone's trying to get out of the store with obvious merchandise, not a scrutinizing of receipts.

The OP thinks the workers are obnoxious, and the policy of examining receipts sucks, and all this other nonsense... but they still shop there.  I guess being a cheapskate trumps all.

----------


## ARealConservative

> If we don't fight off even the little tyrannies turning us into the prison/slave/surveillance state, where will we get the energy to combat the big ones? Or for that matter, to get laid?


this is not tyranny, this is a private company trying to prevent rampant theft because humanity is turning to $#@! and can't keep their hands off other peoples property.

----------


## sevin

> this is not tyranny, this is a private company trying to prevent rampant theft because humanity is turning to $#@! and can't keep their hands off other peoples property.


+1

I like the rebellious spirit of the people here, but not showing your receipt when you leave walmart? gimme a break.

----------


## MelissaWV

> +1
> 
> I like the rebellious spirit of the people here, but not showing your receipt when you leave walmart? gimme a break.



But but but!  First it's receipts at WalMart, then you're required to have a license to procreate!  Don't you understand?!?!?

----------


## tremendoustie

> That is still not correct and I don't know what would give you this idea.
> 
> You are not obligated to comply with rules just because you are on private property. If you break rules you may be asked to leave. If you break laws you may be arrested. However you are not subject to a search by employees of a private company.
> 
> edit- Of course a company can refuse to let you in unless you show them your belongings though...


An owner of property can place whatever rules on the use of that property he likes, as long as you are informed clearly before using the property. If you use the property with full knowledge of these rules, you consent to the rules.

----------


## FreeTraveler

This thread is perfect proof of the reason the liberty movement goes nowhere time after time. Get some momentum and then throw it away trying to make private property owners do what you want.

Wal-Mart is not the enemy; it holds no gun to your head.

----------


## ARealConservative

> This thread is perfect proof of the reason the liberty movement goes nowhere time after time. Get some momentum and then throw it away trying to make private property owners do what you want.
> 
> Wal-Mart is not the enemy; it holds no gun to your head.


I wish it was just walmart.

It is also employers and pretty much everyone better off financially.

the amount of class warfare advocates is astounding.  desire for freedom is actually just jealousy for many on this forum.

----------


## Danke

Gotta love Walmart.

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/satel...ta-center.html

http://www.rense.com/general46/BB.HTM

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_148015054

----------


## FreeTraveler

No, you don't "Gotta love Walmart." That's the beauty of the free market. You can walk away and never darken their door again. You can ask all your friends to do the same.

Try that with government and you get a jail cell or a bullet in the head.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Just curious on what others here think on the issue....Whenever I shop at walmart, I make it my mission to never show my receipt(always in a polite and respectful manner) to the greeter/ receipt-checker on the way out...I dont do this to annoy anyone on purpose or to intentionally start a scene...I do so simply out of principle. 1) to prevent myself from being subjected to an unwanted search of items that are now MY property, 2) to bypass the line of sheep that are willing to go through an unnecessary search, and 3) although I feel that it is within their power to ASK to see my receipt, they cannot FORCE me to show my receipt unless there is reasonable suspicion that I may have stole something...
> 
> I realize that If I shopped at Costco, or Sams Club, I would be required to show my receipt because that was part of the agreement when I signed up for my membership and therefore voluntarily waived my right to not show my receipt.....If I failed to comply, I deserve to have my membership revoked, for good reason....But at walmart, no agreement is made of any kind and I did not voluntarily waive any of my rights....
> 
> Just wondering what everybodys 2 cents are and if anybody else does this


Not only should they request to see the receipt, I think the store should write down all license plate numbers upon their entering onto the property.  Known shop lifters should be turned away and given a certain time on a a certain day to show up to shop, but only while under strict supervision.  Good shoppers should be given a discount for behaving themselves.

----------


## angelatc

> But but but!  First it's receipts at WalMart, then you're required to have a license to procreate!  Don't you understand?!?!?


Wow! So you guys don't mind being asked to prove yourself innocent, even though you've been under constant surveillance since before you even entered the store. 

They don't actually even catch anybody at the exit like that. It's all for show - a psychological trick.

I actually don't shop at stores that make me show the receipt, and if I'm forced to (like redeeming a gift card) rest assured they'll be a scene if the employees by the exit aren't properly trained about where their rights end.

1 screaming kid with a full diaper in my cart, 2 fighting kids by my side in a parking lot where there actually is quite heavy traffic,  a cart full of frozen food, and no idea where I put the damned receipt along with all the other crap they shove in your hand before you leave? Screw you, minimum wage minion.

That actually happened in Indiana. My youngest was a baby, and my oldest was having a squabble with a 3rd one that I was watching. 

The employee followed me out to the car and actually tried to take my cart. I said "Touch me, Target Man. I dare you" and he caved.  He knew damned well he'd lose his job  It was a brand new Target, with incredible loss leaders to lure me in. 

None of the 3 big box stores here check receipts when we exit, so I forget that some stores do it.

----------


## angelatc

> Not only should they request to see the receipt, I think the store should write down all license plate numbers upon their entering onto the property..


They pretty much capture all of them on film.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Wow! So you guys don't mind being asked to prove yourself innocent, even though you've been under constant surveillance since before you even entered the store. 
> 
> They don't actually even catch anybody at the exit like that. It's all for show - a psychological trick.
> 
> I actually don't shop at stores that make me show the receipt, and if I'm forced to (like redeeming a gift card) rest assured they'll be a scene if the employees by the exit aren't properly trained about where their rights end.
> 
> 1 screaming kid with a full diaper in my cart, 2 fighting kids by my side in a parking lot where there actually is quite heavy traffic,  a cart full of frozen food, and no idea where I put the damned receipt along with all the other crap they shove in your hand before you leave.
> 
> That actually happened in Indiana. My youngest was a baby, and my oldest was having a squabble with a 3rd one that I was watching. 
> ...


I do mind.  So do you.  We both do the same thing to avoid the situation  

I haven't been to a WalMart since I left WV, and I only went to the one in WV every once in awhile (the store was clean, new, and the people there were fairly polite).  I do agree it's a dumb policy.  No one is REALLY checking much of anything.  When you've bought dozens of items (like at a Super WalMart) they cannot possibly go through every last bag and make sure it matches the receipt.  It would be far more efficient to have people checking at each register (baggers used to do this at the grocery store I worked at) to make sure what's in the cart is what is scanned, and there's no errors either way.  There are cameras everywhere.  So why slow people down when they're trying to get the heck out?

Nope.  It's just one reason I don't go to WalMart (there are many!), but I think they have every right to do this "double check" on items in your cart.  We have every right not to shop there.  I wonder if someone's ever found an overcharge or a double-scan on a "double check" like this... something that worked in the customer's favor?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Wow! So you guys don't mind being asked to prove yourself innocent, even though you've been under constant surveillance since before you even entered the store.


no.  I completely understand how difficult it is for a business to exist with all the class warfare advocates crying about this or that.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> This thread is perfect proof of the reason the liberty movement goes nowhere time after time. Get some momentum and then throw it away trying to make private property owners do what you want.
> 
> Wal-Mart is not the enemy; it holds no gun to your head.


Right.  The city sent me a water bill the other day referring to me as a customer.  This means to be worth something to them, I must be a buyer and a seller.  I have lost my soul as an American.  I have no Civil Purpose as a citizan outside of my behind being bought and sold for something.
But it is my fault.  As a responsible American, I take full responsibility.  I have lost my soul because I've fallen for that same old ruse of buying Washington's empty box of goods.  Even worst, I've bought a bill of goods put in the empty box meaning not only have I bought the empty thing, but I must pay a huge bill to have it delivered to me.  
You see, in my believing them when they say the box isn't empty, I've had my box totally emptied out.  
It is the same old, same old.  Tyranny is once again reestablishing itself by selling a person's natural ability to be something over a person's unnatural ability to learn to be a better something.  The older brother falls for selling his youngest sister as a whore.  At the same time, most of us are just wretches in denial.  Worst yet, we are wretched whores.  Not only can we do nothing about our being pimped, but the best we can do about it is hinder those just as unfortunate as oursevles.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> I wonder if someone's ever found an overcharge or a double-scan on a "double check" like this... something that worked in the customer's favor?


Actually, a very nice clerk once pointed out I'd left a case of beer behind at the checkout.

----------


## RedStripe

If you shop at walmart you deserve whatever you get

----------


## FreeTraveler

Yep, the same crappy chinese stuff you get everywhere else, at lower prices.

----------


## low preference guy

> The prices are lower because they demand receipts, and surveil the store with cameras, and put electronic security devices on stuff. If you can't tolerate that invasion of your privacy, then go elsewhere and pay the higher prices.


This. It's within your rights to refuse showing your receipt. But if many people start doing that, they'll have to update their security system or make everyone agree to a contract to show their receipts. That will cost you time, money, or both.

Remember, it is WALMART. They have cheaper products for a reason. If you want a better environment or service, you'll have to pay more somewhere else.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Actually, a very nice clerk once pointed out I'd left a case of beer behind at the checkout.


Oh, I did that many a time as a grocery store cashier, and when I worked the front... a couple of times we even replaced beer when the unthinkable tragedy happened (guy carrying two heavy cases of bottles... some of the bottles fell... dead beer! and he'd already paid!!!).  My question was more directed at whether THIS practice has ever yielded that result.  The workers checking your receipt prior to exit don't seem to have time to do much, and I doubt they're keeping an eye out for double scans and such.

----------


## jack555

> Damn right! 
> 
> You have the obligation to prove you bought the items when you're on THEIR property.


You are not obligated to do anything but leave when told when on someone elses property.

----------


## jack555

> Maybe you should just walk out of the store without paying. The cashier has no right to scan all your crap and see what your buying! TYRANNY! LOL



In this case they would have the right to detain you until the police arrived. I can't believe so many people on ronpaulforums are this ignorant. If half of ronpaulforums believes that mandatory detention on private property is lawful imagine what the rest of the population thinks!

----------


## jack555

> If we don't fight off even the little tyrannies turning us into the prison/slave/surveillance state, where will we get the energy to combat the big ones? Or for that matter, to get laid?



I feel like you are confusing business with government. This is not really an example of tyranny. Or if you do want to define it as tyranny it is unimportant as you can choose to not go on their property or choose to go on their property and refuse (unless told to not return). 

Very very different then the government tyranny we talk about here on libertyforest.

----------


## jack555

> An owner of property can place whatever rules on the use of that property he likes, as long as you are informed clearly before using the property. If you use the property with full knowledge of these rules, you consent to the rules.


Not in the United States. If a man puts up a sign that says trespassers will be raped and a girl trespasses and he rapes her the man will go to prison no doubt about it. Think man think! This stuff should be common sense.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I feel like you are confusing business with government. This is not really an example of tyranny. Or if you do want to define it as tyranny it is unimportant as you can choose to not go on their property or choose to go on their property and refuse (unless told to not return). 
> 
> Very very different then the government tyranny we talk about here on libertyforest.


I am holding business and civil government to the same standard of liberty. WE the people are the the real government, and are as capable of acting tyrannically towards others in the private sector as a civil institution is. The fact you can elect to move on to another store after encountering a tyrannical situation, does NOT change the fact of that situation. The fact that it is a policy of the private entity does NOT make the unconscionable policy a valid contract; rights supercede bad policies. To the extent we do not fight public or private tyranny, we make it easier for the civil government to practice its big time, harder to avoid tyrannies against us. Let's not have the private sector training or conditioning us to accept surrendering our rights.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> In this case they would have the right to detain you until the police arrived. I can't believe so many people on ronpaulforums are this ignorant. If half of ronpaulforums believes that mandatory detention on private property is lawful imagine what the rest of the population thinks!


excellent point, it is pretty shocking....

----------


## tremendoustie

> I am holding business and civil government to the same standard of liberty. WE the people are the the real government, and are as capable of acting tyrannically towards others in the private sector as a civil institution is. The fact you can elect to move on to another store after encountering a tyrannical situation, does NOT change the fact of that situation. The fact that it is a policy of the private entity does NOT make the unconscionable policy a valid contract; rights supercede bad policies. To the extent we do not fight public or private tyranny, we make it easier for the civil government to practice its big time, harder to avoid tyrannies against us. Let's not have the private sector training or conditioning us to accept surrendering our rights.


The difference is, walmart owns the store. The US government does not own the country.

----------


## angelatc

> In this case they would have the right to detain you until the police arrived. I can't believe so many people on ronpaulforums are this ignorant. If half of ronpaulforums believes that mandatory detention on private property is lawful imagine what the rest of the population thinks!


I has the same reaction.  I talked to the hubby today and he said the same thing. 

 He thinks they're young.  They really have no concept of how different things used to be.  They've grown up with metal detectors, locker searches and drug dogs as a natural part of their lives.

For them, there's always been a camera in the gas station and the convenience store.

They've always been required to produce ID to board an airplane.

Mission accomplished, big brother.

----------


## angelatc

> no.  I completely understand how difficult it is for a business to exist with all the class warfare advocates crying about this or that.



You're going to have to trust me on this, but  I know far more about Wal-Mart strategies than you do. 

Like I said, they do not catch people stealing that way. It's all psy ops.

They play their games, and I play mine.   If they want to make me miserable with their petty nonsense, then we're all going to be miserable.

You really think with all those cameras, and after I've spent 10 freaking minutes waiting in a line to pay for my items in full view of 30 people that work for the store that they really need to see my receipt to know that I paid?

You really think that? Wow.

----------


## Thargok

> In this case they would have the right to detain you until the police arrived. I can't believe so many people on ronpaulforums are this ignorant. If half of ronpaulforums believes that mandatory detention on private property is lawful imagine what the rest of the population thinks!


Under Title 18 Section 242 of the United States Code, it is illegal to detain somebody while acting under the 'color of law'.  Since doing so is a violation of the 5th Amendment and Due Process.  What they can do is ask you to stay, but unless they are an officer of the law (which some stores hire out for this purpose) operating on probable cause they have no right to detain you. 

This dates back to when African Americans were detained until the Sheriff arrived with a lynch mob, hence the purpose for Section 241 of Title 18 outlawing conspiracy to do the same outside the 'color of law'.

This only applies to the federal level, but is still applicable.  It is likely that there are state regulations that may supersede such laws, but not in Kentucky.

----------


## ARealConservative

> You're going to have to trust me on this, but  I know far more about Wal-Mart strategies than you do. 
> 
> Like I said, they do not catch people stealing that way. It's all psy ops.
> 
> They play their games, and I play mine.   If they want to make me miserable with their petty nonsense, then we're all going to be miserable.
> 
> You really think with all those cameras, and after I've spent 10 freaking minutes waiting in a line to pay for my items in full view of 30 people that work for the store that they really need to see my receipt to know that I paid?
> 
> You really think that? Wow.


wow you say?

Corporations the size of walmart spend a great deal of money studying the efficiency of their process.  I'm pretty sure they aren't doing these things without sound business reasons to do so.

For instance, did you stop to consider this human interaction isn't designed to catch criminals, but to deter them?  And do you ever consider that because actions they take don't have an impact on you,they still might have an impact on others?

Considering their market share, I am going to have to discount your anecdotal evidence and defer to their judgment on the effectiveness of the receipt check.

all wows aside.

----------


## angelatc

> wow you say?
> 
> Corporations the size of walmart spend a great deal of money studying the efficiency of their process.  I'm pretty sure they aren't doing these things without sound business reasons to do so.
> 
> For instance, did you stop to consider this human interaction isn't designed to catch criminals, but to deter them?  And do you ever consider that because actions they take don't have an impact on you,they still might have an impact on others?
> 
> Considering their market share, I am going to have to discount your anecdotal evidence and defer to their judgment on the effectiveness of the receipt check.
> 
> all wows aside.


You didn't read all my posts. I distinctly said that the receipt checkers were entirely a psychological trick.   

As for the rest of it, you're dead on.  But actually,  corporations the size of WalMart spend a great deal of money studying WalMart's efficiency process.  They are the gold standard.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

Retailers like Wal-Mart can lose millions of dollars  in missing product (stolen, damaged, etc), its fully in their interest to employ a couple old guys at each store for minimum wage or whatever they make. 

I can't tell if some people are being serious or just jacking around in this thread, but its pretty silly to make an issue of this.




> Like I said, they do not catch people stealing that way. It's all psy ops.


What do you mean by "psy op", do you mean in the sense that cameras and receipt checkers help prevent theft by people less willing to take on risk?

I know some grocery retailers will literally chase people down and tackle them. I know a store manager that does this, dude has tons of stories about confronting shop lifters.

----------


## ARealConservative

> You didn't read all my posts. I distinctly said that the receipt checkers were entirely a psychological trick.


I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be anymore?

You originally said:  *wow! So you guys don't mind being asked to prove yourself innocent, even though you've been under constant surveillance since before you even entered the store.*

Our disagreement was never about the effectiveness of catching crooks, you just introduced that straw man tonight.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be anymore?
> 
> You originally said:  *wow! So you guys don't mind being asked to prove yourself innocent, even though you've been under constant surveillance since before you even entered the store.*
> 
> Our disagreement was never about the effectiveness of catching crooks, you just introduced that straw man tonight.


I didn't even know that we had a disagreement. My point is, and always has been, that customers don't have to show them the receipt, and they're just messing with the customer's mind when they ask for it.    I find it sad (especially here) that the mind of the younger set just accepts this mental intrusion without question, and even vehemently defends it. 

Other people implied that shoplifters were caught that way.

----------


## jsu718

Pretty sure it is about state law. I know in Texas you are not required to show a receipt... they can ask, but they can't do anything if you keep on walking. California has a similar law
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/490.5.html
specifically section f
but that only applies if they have probably cause, which means they would have had to physically have seen you in the act of stealing something.

----------


## angelatc

> I know some grocery retailers will literally chase people down and tackle them. I know a store manager that does this, dude has tons of stories about confronting shop lifters.


Of course. Ask the store manager what happens if they chase down and tackle a person for refusing to show a receipt.

Cameras offer a psychological deterrent, but they also actually allow store personnel to observe people shoplifting.  There are cameras in plain sight, but there are also cameras that you don't see.

Receipt checkers don't actually catch criminals.  If you have a Chapstick in your pocket, the guy checking your receipt isn't the guy that's going to take you down.

I fully understand that it doesn't bother you. As someone who lived during a time when a store would never dream of treating their customers with such disrespect, it saddens me greatly to see how little the youth actually thinks of themselves.  

Papers, please!

----------


## ARealConservative

> I didn't even know that we had a disagreement. My point is, and always has been, that customers don't have to show them the receipt, and they're just messing with the customer's mind when they ask for it.    I find it sad (especially here) that the mind of the younger set just accepts this mental intrusion without question, and even vehemently defends it. 
> 
> Other people implied that shoplifters were caught that way.


We had a disagreement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=80

----------


## angelatc

> We had a disagreement.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=80


Speaking of strawmen....

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> My point is, and always has been, that customers don't have to show them the receipt, and they're just messing with the customer's mind when they ask for it. I find it sad (especially here) that the mind of the younger set just accepts this mental intrusion without question, and even vehemently defends it.


You don't _have to do_ a lot of things, including humoring social niceties, but they are completely harmless. When one of the receipt checkers who serves the dual purpose of being a greeter smiles and says hi to you, you could just pretend they don't exist and dismiss it as artificial friendliness (a 'psyop' to maintain _the corporation's image of friendliness_) or you could expend a second's worth of calories and acknowledge them.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Speaking of strawmen....


the mature thing would be to accept that you got confused about what/who you were responding to and drop it.

or you could go on about how much more you know about walmart security while pretending my response to a direct question is the straw man.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Of course. Ask the store manager what happens if they chase down and tackle a person for refusing to show a receipt.
> 
> Cameras offer a psychological deterrent, but they also actually allow store personnel to observe people shoplifting.  There are cameras in plain sight, but there are also cameras that you don't see.
> 
> Receipt checkers don't actually catch criminals.  If you have a Chapstick in your pocket, the guy checking your receipt isn't the guy that's going to take you down.
> 
> I fully understand that it doesn't bother you. As someone who lived during a time when a store would never dream of treating their customers with such disrespect, it saddens me greatly to see how little the youth actually thinks of themselves.  
> 
> Papers, please!


I am so sick of the ignorance!

papers please?  really?  

You are comparing a private company wanting to reduce theft with Nazi Germany?

voluntary association with government force.

$#@!ing brilliant!

----------


## ammorris

For the record, checking receipts does help prevent shoplifting.  I work retail, and have recovered several thousand dollars worth of merchandise this way.  It is true that I cannot physically stop someone due to store policy (only a manager or loss prevention person can do that), but many crooks will drop the stuff and run if asked to produce a receipt.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Of course. Ask the store manager what happens if they chase down and tackle a person for refusing to show a receipt.
> 
> Cameras offer a psychological deterrent, but they also actually allow store personnel to observe people shoplifting.  There are cameras in plain sight, but there are also cameras that you don't see.
> 
> Receipt checkers don't actually catch criminals.  If you have a Chapstick in your pocket, the guy checking your receipt isn't the guy that's going to take you down.
> 
> I fully understand that it doesn't bother you. As someone who lived during a time when a store would never dream of treating their customers with such disrespect, it saddens me greatly to see how little the youth actually thinks of themselves.  
> 
> Papers, please!


I suggest that if you don't like the policies of a store, that you choose not to shop there. If enough people do the same, they will go out of business, or change their behavior. If you choose to enter that property with full knowledge of their standard policies, you have no right to object.

----------


## ARealConservative

> For the record, checking receipts does help prevent shoplifting.  I work retail, and have recovered several thousand dollars worth of merchandise this way.  It is true that I cannot physically stop someone due to store policy (only a manager or loss prevention person can do that), but many crooks will drop the stuff and run if asked to produce a receipt.


what you can and should do is blacklist these jerks.  Stores should band together and not allow these people from using their services if they are going to make an issue out of reasonable  theft prevention methods

Then all the people that want to be ant-social can cry about having to overpay because they have to shop at stores that don't combat shoplifting.

----------


## pacelli

You know that Wal-Mart gets paid to employ the entrance & exit greeters, right?

----------


## ladyjade3

Your rights not to be subjected to unnecessary searches applies against the government.  The government is not searching you at walmart.  Neither is it their policy to go through your personal items like purses.  At least I've never seen them do that.  They are looking in the cart, which is their property that they are letting you use.

I think their main goal is to make sure you don't have stuff under the cart the checker missed.  I think they are double checking their own staff, more than checking you for theft.

Don't be a jerk about it.  Just show them the receipt.

----------


## angelatc

> the mature thing would be to accept that you got confused about what/who you were responding to and drop it.
> 
> or you could go on about how much more you know about walmart security while pretending my response to a direct question is the straw man.


I'm not confused at all. 

And I went to bed.   Your response brought in an eye-rolling strawman about social status and retail theft. I chose, and choose, to ignore it.

I'm not going to argue anymore in this thread, because I don't have any points left to make. Obviously my opinion is different than that of the next generations,  but from a general and overall philosophical stance, I will defend one thing I said with the following: If it is true that fascism is a coporate/government partnership, and if (as many her continually maintain) that WalMart is one of the biggest partners in that relationship, then "Papers please" is indeed a subtle form of fascism-type of behavioral enforcement.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> Your rights not to be subjected to unnecessary searches applies against the government.  The government is not searching you at walmart.  Neither is it their policy to go through your personal items like purses.  At least I've never seen them do that.  They are looking in the cart, which is their property that they are letting you use.
> 
> I think their main goal is to make sure you don't have stuff under the cart the checker missed.  I think they are double checking their own staff, more than checking you for theft.
> 
> Don't be a jerk about it.  Just show them the receipt.




So everybody uses a cart? what about a person who carries 4 bags and ditches the cart? what is your argument now....those goods in the patrons bags are now their PROPERTY, not walmarts....

yea because the checker actually does such a great job checking for items to match what you have....if they can really accomplish that goal, then they should be given a pay raise and promoted to manager for being so keen and brilliant...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

WalMart is incorporated and exercising a state privileged form of business ownership.

WalMart is not exercising private property rights they are enjoying the privileges of a government regulated public place of business.

Government anti-discrimination law or illegal search can apply to your person or private property you own and have title to.  Take advantage and sue as previously mentioned.

----------


## ammorris

> So everybody uses a cart? what about a person who carries 4 bags and ditches the cart? what is your argument now....those goods in the patrons bags are now their PROPERTY, not walmarts....
> 
> yea because the checker actually does such a great job checking for items to match what you have....if they can really accomplish that goal, then they should be given a pay raise and promoted to manager for being so keen and brilliant...


1) They aren't checking to make sure everything matches the receipt.  They are checking for big-ticket items that are not on the receipt.  This typically means people who have not gone through a checkout line, and are just walking out of the store with stuff.

2) No one is going to follow you out or stop you if you just keep walking.  But we will assume that you are a thief.  Most reasonable people will comply with a simple, non-invasive procedure that allows the store to reduce it's shrink, which turn allows it to lower prices and pay employees better.

Have a nice day, and I hope no one comes into your house or place of business and walks out with your stuff.  It kind of sucks.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I'm not confused at all. 
> 
> And I went to bed.   Your response brought in an eye-rolling strawman about social status and retail theft. I chose, and choose, to ignore it.
> 
> I'm not going to argue anymore in this thread, because I don't have any points left to make. Obviously my opinion is different than that of the next generations,  but from a general and overall philosophical stance, I will defend one thing I said with the following: If it is true that fascism is a coporate/government partnership, and if (as many her continually maintain) that WalMart is one of the biggest partners in that relationship, then "Papers please" is indeed a subtle form of fascism-type of behavioral enforcement.


go look up the definition of straw man and stop acting so ignorant.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Have a nice day, and I hope no one comes into your house or place of business and *walks out with your stuff*.  It kind of sucks.


Even my opponents acknowledge it's all about whose stuff

----------


## Natalie

I don't mind showing them my receipt.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't mind showing them my receipt.


Plus, we have bigger battles to fight.

----------


## RichieLibertarian

> 1) They aren't checking to make sure everything matches the receipt.  They are checking for big-ticket items that are not on the receipt.  This typically means people who have not gone through a checkout line, and are just walking out the store with stuff.
> 
> 2) No one is going to follow you out or stop you if you just keep walking.  But we will assume that you are a thief.  Most reasonable people will comply with a simple, non-invasive procedure that allows the store to reduce it's shrink, which turn allows it to lower prices and pay employees better.
> 
> Have a nice day, and I hope no one comes into your house or place of business and walks out with your stuff.  It kind of sucks.


guess i am not reasonable.....using the term non-invasive can be very subjective....

In a real free market, walmart would not be the giant it is today, but thats a whole other debate...especially considering that the taxpayer subsidizes (billions) most of the bill when it comes to paying healthcare for its employees....

----------


## Zatch

Wal-Mart doesn't forcefully detain anyone. The most they do if you don't show your receipt is verbally harass you on their own property. Wal-Mart does not in any way violate your rights.

----------

