Walmart

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? IN, but not really relevant.

I am in a Masters Program and we were discussing Walmart's policies regarding shoplifting from an economic perspective, but it made me question the policies from a legal perspective as well.

Its my understanding (from class) that whether Walmart chooses to call the police or not, that Walmart themselves assesses their own fine of $100.00 against the culprit, and threatens to sue them civilly if they don't pay the fine.

Is this actually legal for them to do? Couldn't this be construed as a form of extortion? I have been mulling that over ever since that class session. Something just doesn't feel legally right about that.

Oh, and in case anyone's interested the class came to the conclusion that banning someone for life from all Walmart stores and affiliates is a poor economic decision. Particularly if the culprit is young. That's alot of potential business to lose over someone's lifetime. It doesn't appear to be in any way enforceable either.

[CdwJava]

Whether they can levy a civil assessment or not depends on the laws of the state in question. I have seen these as high as $350 in CA, and I believe they can go to $500 ... the section that covers this escapes me at the moment.

However, I doubt they would bother to take anyone to court as it would be small claims court, and the Wal-Mart attorney would cost too much to to do that. And I have yet to ever have Wal-Mart call us requesting prosecution a month or so after the fact.

It's not extortion if the law allows it ... though I have heard people argue that the letters can come dangerously close.

- Carl

[racer72]

I have seen many retailers will waive filing criminal charges if the civil penalty is paid. Those that blow off the civil fine usually find themselves in front of a judge looking at a bigger fine and a criminal record.

[garrula lingua]

Many laws that seem arbitrary and capricious, make sense if you think:
most laws were made to protect property and ensure that businesses made a profit ....

ergo, there is this civil assessment statute in most states. It is legal.

My advice: pay it and steal no more.

PS: why aren't you discussing how the law allowed Michael Jackson to pay off his victim in (?) 1994 ? Ever read those declarations by that early victim ??

How about Mahoney in L.A. hiding (aiding and abetting) pedophiles ?????

Walmart can take my money, even if I'm innocent,
but nail those pedos !!!!!

[CdwJava]

Who's this Mahoney person, and who is he allegedly hiding?

- Carl

[garrula lingua]

More correctly, Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony of Los Angeles.

[lostsoul23]

Years ago, I worked loss prevention at Meijer. Not only did they issue the "civil demand," they also prosecuted. They prosecuted based on dollar amount at the time, and/or whether or not physical restraint had to be used. The demand was based also on the amount of the good(s) stolen as well. It's been years since I worked there, so, not sure if the guidelines are sitll the same, however, and it was here in Ohio.

[CdwJava]

Well, when they can be identified they will be prosecuted. One problem that has been cropping up with some of these Priest allegations is that they sometimes appear as "repressed memory" recollections. Old cases of molestation are tough enough to prosecute without having to deal with THAT boondoggle!

Not being too familiar with what Cardinal Mahoney has or has not been doing, I cannot comment on his involvement. However, the incidence of molestation allegations by Catholic priests is apparently no greater than that of any other faith or part of society - they just received greater press ... adn this is largely due to the shock factor because of the position a priest holds.

It's similar to school shootings ... the two years we had Columbine and a half doze other highly publicized school shootings was no different than most any other year. The only difference was the amount of national press coverage (and the number of victims in one incident). In fact, if memory serves, school shootings had actually dropped from a dozen years earlier.

Publicity makes something SEEM much more widespread than it might be.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by lostsoul23

Years ago, I worked loss prevention at Meijer. Not only did they issue the "civil demand," they also prosecuted. They prosecuted based on dollar amount at the time, and/or whether or not physical restraint had to be used. The demand was based also on the amount of the good(s) stolen as well. It's been years since I worked there, so, not sure if the guidelines are sitll the same, however, and it was here in Ohio.

Out here you see both on occasion. But, most the time, Wal-Mart simply deals with it in-house unless the suspect is a problem or there is no responsible adult to take custody of a child. I think they call more often on adults than kids.

And when they do NOT call us right away, I have never had them call later to request prosecution ... such as after the civil demand letter has been ignored.

- Carl

[garrula lingua]

Maybe, CArl.

It seems such a violation when it's done by someone so respected ( as a priest is).

(I'm not intimating Mahony was a violator, just an enabler in transferring violators and refusing to release records of violators to the DA)

[LdiJ]

Thanks for the insights....I looked up the statutes in my state (Indiana) to see what kind over leverage Walmart might have to get people to pay the fine.

In a civil proceeding our state allows for 3 times the value of the loss, plus attorney fees and court costs.

Since Walmart didn't actually suffer a loss if they caught the shoplifter, and since it would be small claims...its makes me wonder how many people pay them, and how many people blow them off. Although I suspect that the people most likely to be intimidated and pay it off, are the same people who would never shoplift again...sign....which isn't their "target" audience.

I still don't get the "ban for life" part. Some dumb 14 year old kid gets caught shoplifting and you given up his business for life? Although, as I stated before, it doesn't seem to me that they have any way to enforce that.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I still don't get the "ban for life" part. Some dumb 14 year old kid gets caught shoplifting and you given up his business for life? Although, as I stated before, it doesn't seem to me that they have any way to enforce that.

i would not want someone who steals from me shopping at my store. it cost the store a lot more than you think.

also, you would be surprised how well they can enforce that ban for life. they might be able to get away with shopping at another Walmart but if they get caught at the one they stole from they will be going to jail for trespassing