If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Walmart busts woman for passing real $100 bills   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 188
    More: Fail, A WalMart, Solomon Islands, store manager  
•       •       •

26932 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2012 at 3:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-16 10:23:50 PM

Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher


What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.
 
2012-09-16 10:46:36 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I don't think Walmart has a single employee with a 3-digit IQ.


They only hire the people that spell their names wrong.
 
2012-09-16 10:56:23 PM

Captain PTMB: I also find it odd that the police escorted her to her vehicle afterward. They usually only do that when they want to ensure that you leave the premises.


Assuming everything else is true, the embarrassed manager probably had her trespassed from the store.
 
2012-09-16 10:59:29 PM
I used to work in a bank and never once had a hispanic customer who would take anything less that 100's of preference.
 
2012-09-16 11:10:35 PM

xiaodown: Admittedly, we are a sue-happy culture, but I think the woman's got a totally legitimate complaint, here. The store detained her and humiliated her in front of other employees and customers. That sounds like cause for compensation to me.


How about replacing the destroyed $200, an additional $200, and the firing of the guy responsible? That seems fair to me. $74000, the number cited in the article, seems like something a lawyer made up for his 40%-60% commission
 
2012-09-16 11:18:17 PM
I will add this to the list of reasons why I don't shop at Wal-mart
 
2012-09-16 11:27:59 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-16 11:43:13 PM

mccoma: Girion47: Oznog: 'At this time, he attempted to hand Plaintiff the two torn $100 bills he had misappropriated from her. When Plaintiff objected to receiving torn bills, Officer Edwards instructed Manager Russell to replace the bills he had wrongfully taken and destroyed.'

Ain't destroyed. As long as you have both halves taped together, it's legal tender worth $200. Any bank will take it.

You can also send it to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington DC, 14th and D SW. The lab will piece your bills back together and send you a check. This also works if you have a 2 ft sphere of cash that was buried in the yard. They'll take it apart and determine value.

2ft sphere of cash that was buried in the yard?!? This needs a CSB.


It was an old documentary I watched, but I did work there for a while. Was a very cool place.

Link
 
2012-09-16 11:57:00 PM

Gyrfalcon: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

Meh, it's different with different agencies and jurisdictions. At Disneyland when I was LP, we had 30 minutes from the moment they set foot backstage to conduct the interview, complete the report, and hand the thing over to the cops. We had a cop on duty in Security to expedite the process--but if we weren't done in that 30 minute window, he often wouldn't take the case unless it was for a high dollar amount. When the cop wasn't on property, we could hold them for a regular PD officer...but if the person said, "Nope, I'm leaving," while waiting for the cops, then we had to let them go.


damnnnn and i thought we had some tight restrictions
 
2012-09-16 11:59:14 PM

jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.


shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter
 
2012-09-17 12:05:43 AM

Silentbob768768: jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.

shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter


Is there a statute you can cite for that?
 
2012-09-17 12:09:27 AM

KingoftheCheese: Tough crowd today.

I just stop trolling right now and let you guys get back to your discussions.


You shut your whore mouth and get back to trolling. I'm taking notes here
 
2012-09-17 12:16:52 AM

Girion47: Silentbob768768: jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.

shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter

Is there a statute you can cite for that?


I dont have a specific statute on hand and everything google comes up with that shows promise is in a pdf and i dont have access to adobe at the moment. however, while its pure definition may vary by state, the general gist is a business has to the right to hold a shoplifter for a reasonable amount of time (this part definitely varies by state). Think of it as a citizens arrest. Now if a business detains a subject, conducts their interview/investigation and prosecutes and the subject is found innocent the business would then be liable. This is why big corporations make their LP jump through hoops and make damn sure its a winning case before detaining.
 
2012-09-17 12:17:57 AM

Silentbob768768: Girion47: Silentbob768768: jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.

shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter

Is there a statute you can cite for that?

I dont have a specific statute on hand and everything google comes up with that shows promise is in a pdf and i dont have access to adobe at the moment. however, while its pure definition may vary by state, the general gist is a business has to the right to hold a shoplifter for a reasonable amount of time (this part definitely varies by state). Think of it as a citizens arrest. Now if a business detains a subject, conducts their interview/investigation and prosecutes and the subject is found innocent the business would then be liable. This is why big corporations make their LP jump through hoops and make d ...


Silentbob768768: Girion47: Silentbob768768: jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.

shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter

Is there a statute you can cite for that?

I dont have a specific statute on hand and everything google comes up with that shows promise is in a pdf and i dont have access to adobe at the moment. however, while its pure definition may vary by state, the general gist is a business has to the right to hold a shoplifter for a reasonable amount of time (this part definitely varies by state). Think of it as a citizens arrest. Now if a business detains a subject, conducts their interview/investigation and prosecutes and the subject is found innocent the business would then be liable. This is why big corporations make their LP jump through hoops and make d ...


Ok, was just curious if it was codified somewhere or some kind of mystical "shop keepers privilege" at which point I'd tell you to shove it up your ass.
 
2012-09-17 12:20:00 AM

Oznog: 'At this time, he attempted to hand Plaintiff the two torn $100 bills he had misappropriated from her. When Plaintiff objected to receiving torn bills, Officer Edwards instructed Manager Russell to replace the bills he had wrongfully taken and destroyed.'

Ain't destroyed. As long as you have both halves taped together, it's legal tender worth $200. Any bank will take it.


And the officer ensured Walmart was that bank.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:59 AM

Spirit Hammer: Also the mylar strip is in a different place for each denomination.
(Ever wonder how a blind person can tell a five from a twenty?)


Probably the same way they did before the mylar strip was added.
 
2012-09-17 12:27:58 AM
I cant find a straight law for the country, it might be just one of those blanket things that is up to the states but believe me its real haha you think billion dollar companies would risk it? Now some companies take their liability more hardcore than others...some places will let you use any form of "reasonable force" others will lets you use only the bare minimum if any. I personally have a check list of things that I must go through before I can make a stop...once i do i have to call the higher ups to discuss the case and get prosecution approval. Checklist aint complete? cant make a stop...higher ups say no prosecution? cut em loose. Another interesting thing...if an LP makes a bad stop not only is the store on the line but the LP personally holds liability.
 
2012-09-17 12:29:35 AM

shotglasss: lohphat: FTFA: "It was in the early hours of December 18, 2010..."

Cue: oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

That's my first thought, too. Two years later and she starts suing. Something's fishy here.


The statute of limitations for most civil suits is 2 years. An awful lot of suits are filed after 1 year and 364 days. This one's actually early.
 
2012-09-17 12:35:18 AM

Silentbob768768: if an LP makes a bad stop not only is the store on the line but the LP personally holds liability.


You have that from the store, or from the police?

Because "agency of the employer" covers a lot of job sins, especially when stopping people is your employed position.
 
2012-09-17 12:48:03 AM

This text is now purple: Silentbob768768: if an LP makes a bad stop not only is the store on the line but the LP personally holds liability.

You have that from the store, or from the police?

Because "agency of the employer" covers a lot of job sins, especially when stopping people is your employed position.


its in our contracts
 
2012-09-17 12:59:31 AM

Girion47: Silentbob768768: jat26006: Silentbob768768: Gyrfalcon: jat26006: styckx: After two hours at the front, police arrived around 4.15am

That's some impressive response time there Lou.

especially with someone "detained" by "security"

*sigh* Look up shopkeeper's privilege. Under just about every law in the land, storekeepers are allowed to detain someone suspected of theft for a reasonable amount of time in order to investigate it. Although nobody defines "reasonable" amount of time, the general rule in loss prevention is no more than 30 minutes. If the cops are going to take longer to arrive, you have to get the suspect's information and let them go, otherwise you're looking at false imprisonment.

Which is what I'd be considering were I in this lady's shoes. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's got grounds for all kinds of fun tort claims, really.

actually the way we handle it is we have 30 minutes to conduct our interview before we call the police...we can not hold a shoplifter for longer than 30 minutes without calling the police...if the cops take 3 hours to get here and we called within a half hour its all kosher

What allows a private agency to hold anyone? Cops, you know, have laws.

shopkeepers privilege specifically states just that...a business has the right to detain a shoplifter

Is there a statute you can cite for that?


Texas statute - http://law.onecle.com/texas/civil/124.001.00.html
 
2012-09-17 01:03:33 AM
I'm feeling lazy tonight. What's the ruling on using force to protect yourself from an illegal detainment from a loss prevention puke? What about deadly force if grabbed from behind?

/the google-fu is lazy tonight
 
2012-09-17 01:14:43 AM

Girion47: Ok, was just curious if it was codified somewhere or some kind of mystical "shop keepers privilege" at which point I'd tell you to shove it up your ass.


To answer your question, or rather, this question: Even where there is a formal statute, or where they just rely on common law...they can't actually force you to go. Store security can ask. If you say no and they decide to physically detain you, i.e. arrest you, then that can only be done by a sworn law enforcement officer. One reason, besides employee liability, that stores usually don't allow their LP agents to chase somebody down and haul them back into the store in handcuffs is that nobody except sworn law enforcement has the absolute right to deprive you of your liberty. A few places probably have POST certified agents who can actually arrest you, but it's doubtful that Walmart would spring for such people.

Now, that said, if you shoplift or steal and the LP agent comes up and says "Excuse me, sir or madam, would you mind accompanying me blah blah blah" and you DO decide to run, you're only protected after the fact. That is, if the agent/douchebag decides to introduce your face to the asphalt and drag you bleeding back to the office, you will win in court later (because that's not "reasonable detention") but at the cost of a broken nose. Your call.
 
2012-09-17 02:48:30 AM
Garcia

What the hell is a messican doin with 2 100 dollar bills anyway??
 
2012-09-17 03:11:27 AM

I agree with you: Garcia

What the hell is a messican doin with 2 100 dollar bills anyway??


Going to a yard sale the minute it opens to buya 50 cent item, and expect 99.50 in change.
 
2012-09-17 03:16:05 AM

Farkenhostile: Why not just redirect fark.com to thedailymail.com on weekends to save people time?


But then we couldn't enjoy being sent to The Sun to look at pictures of munters described here as "cute" or "smoking hot."
 
2012-09-17 04:48:31 AM

E-Brake: "Detained at the front of the store while told the police had been called, Ms Garcia claims that adding to her humiliation, the employees told curious customers in passing that she was busted trying to use fake money."

facepalm doesn't begin to describe this.


Words literally fail me trying to describe how bad this is.

I understand that $74,900 is the magic number that keeps it in state court instead of federal court, but if this is true (which it may be, since unusually for a Daily Fail "article" it has multiple sources) I would say she's entitled to a lot more. It's like the employee decided to check as many of the "don't do this if you don't want to get sued" boxes, and then when the manager came to assist he pointed out a few extra boxes the first guy had missed.

Also, could we get a "DIAF" for the manager? I'll admit it's not as douchey as arresting people in bars for public intoxication, but it's in the neighborhood.
 
2012-09-17 05:33:11 AM

reimanr06: xiaodown: Admittedly, we are a sue-happy culture, but I think the woman's got a totally legitimate complaint, here. The store detained her and humiliated her in front of other employees and customers. That sounds like cause for compensation to me.

How about replacing the destroyed $200, an additional $200, and the firing of the guy responsible? That seems fair to me. $74000, the number cited in the article, seems like something a lawyer made up for his 40%-60% commission


If the destruction of bills had been where it stopped, sure, something under 1k and firing the douchenozzles involved would be great. It's the part where they not only detained her for four hours, but told passing customers she was a counterfeiter that makes all them extra zeros on the end justifiable.

Seriously, even after the dick-tastic way the whole episode started, ripping bills up and all, the situation could have been recovered if they'd acted respectfully for the rest of it. Of course, if you start off acting like a dick, why change tack partway through?
 
2012-09-17 09:34:23 AM
You know, I've delt with some business that didn't seem to want my money, but this takes the cake.
 
2012-09-17 09:56:27 AM

Girion47: Oznog: 'At this time, he attempted to hand Plaintiff the two torn $100 bills he had misappropriated from her. When Plaintiff objected to receiving torn bills, Officer Edwards instructed Manager Russell to replace the bills he had wrongfully taken and destroyed.'

Ain't destroyed. As long as you have both halves taped together, it's legal tender worth $200. Any bank will take it.

You can also send it to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington DC, 14th and D SW. The lab will piece your bills back together and send you a check. This also works if you have a 2 ft sphere of cash that was buried in the yard. They'll take it apart and determine value.


Who buries cash in spheres? Pots, boxes, cans, bottles, but spheres?
 
2012-09-17 11:44:43 AM

shotglasss: lohphat: FTFA: "It was in the early hours of December 18, 2010..."

Cue: oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

That's my first thought, too. Two years later and she starts suing. Something's fishy here.


Statute of limitations. She's well within them, and it probably took a while to get a contingency lawyer/for a contingency lawyer to examine the case and say "This is a win, I'll take the case free of initial charge and you can pay me a part of the win/settlement when we get it, and get it we will."
 
2012-09-17 11:52:04 AM
Even if the were counterfeit, why would you tear them up? They're evidence and I'm sure the secret service wouldn't appreciate you damaging them needlessly.
 
2012-09-17 12:46:53 PM

Loren: jake_lex: My guess is that Walmart tried to do some sort of arbitration/mediation about this, tried to screw her in that too, and she rejected the offer and is now taking it to court. That would explain the long delay between this incident and the lawsuit.

Sounds reasonable.


When I was working on my MBA a couple of years ago, I remember reading an article that stated that Wal-Mart fights all lawsuits, regardless of whether they were obviously in the wrong.
 
2012-09-17 01:14:03 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I don't think Walmart has a single employee with a 3-digit IQ.


Keep trying, eventually you'll land your prince. It's just with their high salaries and great benefits, it's hard to keep the men of Walmart single for long. And one with a "3-digit IQ" won't last long on the market ladies.
 
2012-09-17 01:30:43 PM

qualtrough: Girion47: Oznog: 'At this time, he attempted to hand Plaintiff the two torn $100 bills he had misappropriated from her. When Plaintiff objected to receiving torn bills, Officer Edwards instructed Manager Russell to replace the bills he had wrongfully taken and destroyed.'

Ain't destroyed. As long as you have both halves taped together, it's legal tender worth $200. Any bank will take it.

You can also send it to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington DC, 14th and D SW. The lab will piece your bills back together and send you a check. This also works if you have a 2 ft sphere of cash that was buried in the yard. They'll take it apart and determine value.

Who buries cash in spheres? Pots, boxes, cans, bottles, but spheres?


Well if I remember correctly, it was a giant wad of bills buried in a burlap sac by some old dude.
 
2012-09-17 01:45:12 PM

the801: also, robbery, like you said. but false imprisonment is bigger and will get you more money in civil court.


False imprisonment is generally a misdemeanor; robbery is a felony. False imprisonment becomes kidnapping if they involuntarily move you to another location; sounds like this all happened in the checkout isle, so robbery is the only felony charge that would stick.
 
2012-09-18 12:44:49 AM

yukichigai:
It's the part where they not only detained her for four hours, but told passing customers she was a counterfeiter that makes all them extra zeros on the end justifiable.

Seriously, even after the dick-tastic way the whole episode started, ripping bills up and all, the situation could have been recovered if they'd acted respectfully for the rest of it. Of course, if you start off acting like a dick, why change tack partway through?


Not trying to defend Wal-Mart or the actions of their employees here. False imprisonment and at least an attempt at slander (don't you have to prove actual damage to your reputation occurs to win a slander case? I'm not sure that occurred here) are pretty dicktastic, I agree.

I'm just tired of people (and their attorneys) looking for massive paydays for relatively minor incidents.
I don't think having a shiatty afternoon is worth 75000 dollars without proof of some kind of longer term damage. I'm not convinced at this time that the walmart employees telling random customers she was a counterfeiter constitutes any meaningful long term damage to her reputation, but I suppose I could be convinced.

On the other hand, this kind of thing does keep others from acting like dicks, which I'm ok with.
 
2012-09-18 11:01:41 AM

shotglasss: lohphat: FTFA: "It was in the early hours of December 18, 2010..."

Cue: oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

That's my first thought, too. Two years later and she starts suing. Something's fishy here.


That gastric lap band surgeries don't pay for themselves you know.
 
Displayed 38 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report