Will you boycott walmart now?

combatcarry said:

My reason for posting... I disagree with your view on the Sabbath because it doesn't align with the teachings of the New Testament. Mormons love to claim Christianity yet diverge on not only the side issues of Christianity, but the MAJOR core issues.

Click to expand...

So you freely admit that your point in posting was NOT to enlarge any understanding of gun issues, but specifically to nitpick at LDS religious beliefs?

This despite your earlier claim that you were not nit picking at LDS religious beliefs?

combatcarry said:

Your statement that most Christians today observe the Sabbath is ignorant.

Click to expand...

Frankly, that is irrelevant even if true (and I don't concede it is). Furthermore, my statement was that most Christians observe the Sabbath on Sunday (rather than say Saturday). That was made in a failed attempt to avoid those who feel a need to point out that Saturday is the Biblical Sabbath.

Unless there was something offensive in what I posted there was no need to nit pick at differences in religious beliefs. I specifically nodded to the fact that not everyone observes the Sabbath on Sunday. That some of us do and prefer to avoid patronizing businesses that are open that day was used merely as an example of how difficult it is to avoid businesses that have policies with which a person might disagree.

Had I chosen to instead use the example of how few stores cover up magazine covers that some people may believe are too revealing or otherwise inappropriate for children to be looking at as they wait in line would you have felt a burning urge to engage in some debate about what is or is not pornographic or immodest?

combatcarry said:

I could go on... but I won't. I was ready to drop the issue, but you asked why I posted what I did.

Click to expand...

And I think in this most recent response, you've been far more honest and open than you were in your initial response where you claimed not to have been nit-picking differences in religious beliefs.

I'm going to ask you again: was there any confusion or question in your mind, for even a moment, about the point I was attempting to make with my example? Did you think I was attempting to push, advocate, or proselyte any particular religious view or practice by using that example? Did you think that your post was going to do anything at all to increase understanding of the RKBA issues?

I tell you in all sincerity and honesty, that my purpose in using the example of businesses open on Sunday was to merely give an example, ANY example I thought would not be controversial, of how difficult it is to avoid businesses with policies we don't like. It is not just gun policies, it is what days they are open, it is what merchandise they carry, it is how items are displayed, it is how they treat their employees.

And if you'll go read again, my initial response to you was VERY low key. Here is the total of it. If you honestly think this was "overboard" I think you need to reevaluate your "Christian" beliefs regarding being offended too easily.

If you or any other Christian chooses to hold such beliefs regarding the Sabbath that is entirely your choice. But it is entirely off topic to this thread and this forumn. My use of it in an example was clearly not intended to raise any debates about doctrine or differences in religious beliefs, but merely to cite an example with which I believe most of the audience here are familiar. Many Christian sects do observe the Sabbath, as do many Jews. And personal desires not to encourage or reward businesses that choose to do business on that day is very familiar to most adult in this nation.

I have not and will not attack nor belittle your religious beliefs, combat. I once again ask that you refrain from any inclinations to nit-pick over what you might see as failings in my religious beliefs. Coming from an ex-mormon, any such criticism on your part is likely to be seen as untoward, at least.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Charles

Not now and not later!
While I do agree it’s BS for Walmart to fire them for allegedly defending their life I also have to wonder did they have full opportunity for catch-and-release. How can I be sure they couldn’t have just opened the door, and de-escalated, stilling having jobs?
How many possibilities?
· Alive and pissed.
· Alive, pissed and sue.
· If they let the gunman go as asked, praised?
· If the let the gunman go as asked, shot or killed as the gunman flees, they or family would sue walmart for not protecting them?
· If they let the gunman go as asked, fleeing gunman shoots store patron in his escape, fired for not protecting, sue by victims?
· You add the other possibilities.
Bottom line! Why would I stop shopping at a store that’s affordable, cheep #6 steel shot, 9MM, and a ton of other foods and merchandise? I swear if I boycotted every store someone else had a personal problem with I would need my own farm, manufacturing plant’s, gun store, car dealership, retail and warehouse chain on-and –on… But really! The four should count their lucky stars, and sue even though I don’t believe they have a chance in hell, as they accepted the policy as terms of employment. And finally do as someone else suggested find an employer that suits their fancy.

OC for ME said:

If the store policy is to check your receipt when you exit and it is not done consistently (every customer checked) then you may have a case. If every customer is checked, you may refuse and walk out and they may (will) call a cop and have him detain you until your receipt is checked. Remember, if they check everyone expect to get a cop on you. They, the business, is engaged in theft prevention.

Just because Costco does not check very well does not mean that your case could be made to a LEO.

Click to expand...

I've never once allowed anyone at Walmart to check my receipt when I leave, and have yet to see the police about it. When asked "Can I check your receipt?" my reply is "No thanks." and I keep walking.

buster81 said:

I've never once allowed anyone at Walmart to check my receipt when I leave, and have yet to see the police about it. When asked "Can I check your receipt?" my reply is "No thanks." and I keep walking.

Click to expand...

Once purchased the merchandise and the receipt are my private/personal property.

If they want to accuse me of shop lifting, they are welcome to be my guest - they may be assured they will learn how that works out.

buster81 said:

I've never once allowed anyone at Walmart to check my receipt when I leave, and have yet to see the police about it. When asked "Can I check your receipt?" my reply is "No thanks." and I keep walking.

Click to expand...

There is nothing they can do except file a report.

Grapeshot said:

Once purchased the merchandise and the receipt are my private/personal property.

If they want to accuse me of shop lifting, they are welcome to be my guest - they may be assured they will learn how that works out.

Click to expand...

Bingo, we have a winner!

I always laugh at the sheeple who not only show their receipts if asked by the door greeter, but especially the ones who stand there and wait to be checked as if to say "please let me relinquish my rights and show you that I'm complying with your unreasonable demand".

Once you've completed your purchase, the items are your personal property. You don't have to carry receipts to show that the clothes on your back belong to you so why do you have to prove that the bag of Twinkies are yours.

And if you live in a small town as I do, you can even train the door greeters. They never ask me to see my receipt anymore. Not even at Christmas. I guess they're tired of hearing "no".

Sorry for the off topic rant. Back to the normally scheduled thread.

Grapeshot said:

Once purchased the merchandise and the receipt are my private/personal property.

If they want to accuse me of shop lifting, they are welcome to be my guest - they may be assured they will learn how that works out.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand this attitude. I don't like thieves. I don't like paying higher prices to make up for losses incurred from theft. I like to see thieves caught.

I don't consider it a loss of my rights to assist a store in minimizing theft. I love shopping at Costco and they have a policy of checking (however poorly) every customer receipt and cart leaving the store.

I don't love Walmart so much; lousy customer service. But with the price/quality point they offer and the large selection of merchandise, I do shop there. They are spotty at best about asking about receipts. But if they ask, I'm happy to help them check.

I don't feel like I have a right to shop anywhere. I believe that all honest business relationships are based on mutual benefit. Walrmat and Costco benefit from me patronizing their store; I benefit from being able to patronize their store. If I don't like a policy, practice, or rule I take my business elsewhere. That includes return policies, checking of receipts, and even gun policies.

Turns out my personal experience at Walmart (and Costco) relative to my gun is no experience. I do tend to CCC or CC rather than full blown OC in Walmart and Costco. And I'm fat, middle aged, and often have a kid or two in tow. But whatever the reason, my gun has never been an issue at Walmart or Costco. And I don't have any heartburn with a store taking modest measures to prevent theft. Checking of receipts is a reasonable, modest measure.

In fact, given the choice between a store that checks every receipt every time (Costco) and a store than never checked receipts, all else being equal I'll go with the store that checks. I figure it doesn't take long before the other store has higher prices to cover their lax attitude on security.

As we are anxious to assert our rights, we ought to think about the rights of other property owners as well.

Charles

Nope Wrong

sharkey said:

Ok, I'm wrong on more than one count. You can be accused of anything, anytime.

I read my state's law and they don't mention leaving the premises at all, I guess a good lawyer could argue it though.

The most troubling thing I saw was this:

ARS 13-1805


I never allow any store to look at my receipt when I exit. I have even asked if they plan on unlawfully detaining me. I don't think it would be "reasonable" to detain me for refusing to provide my receipt but "reasonable" is always subject to interpretation.

Click to expand...

Wrong! This is wrong they can NOT check you for any reason without P/C.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This does NOT only apply to LEO and the State can not make it's own law that infringe on the rights of the American People, So no you do not have to let them see your receipt and if forced to do so call the police yourself so you can get a report and/or report number so you can sue their dumb asses.

Do what??????

utbagpiper said:

I guess I don't understand this attitude. I don't like thieves. I don't like paying higher prices to make up for losses incurred from theft. I like to see thieves caught.

I don't consider it a loss of my rights to assist a store in minimizing theft. I love shopping at Costco and they have a policy of checking (however poorly) every customer receipt and cart leaving the store.

I don't love Walmart so much; lousy customer service. But with the price/quality point they offer and the large selection of merchandise, I do shop there. They are spotty at best about asking about receipts. But if they ask, I'm happy to help them check.

I don't feel like I have a right to shop anywhere. I believe that all honest business relationships are based on mutual benefit. Walrmat and Costco benefit from me patronizing their store; I benefit from being able to patronize their store. If I don't like a policy, practice, or rule I take my business elsewhere. That includes return policies, checking of receipts, and even gun policies.

Turns out my personal experience at Walmart (and Costco) relative to my gun is no experience. I do tend to CCC or CC rather than full blown OC in Walmart and Costco. And I'm fat, middle aged, and often have a kid or two in tow. But whatever the reason, my gun has never been an issue at Walmart or Costco. And I don't have any heartburn with a store taking modest measures to prevent theft. Checking of receipts is a reasonable, modest measure.

In fact, given the choice between a store that checks every receipt every time (Costco) and a store than never checked receipts, all else being equal I'll go with the store that checks. I figure it doesn't take long before the other store has higher prices to cover their lax attitude on security.

As we are anxious to assert our rights, we ought to think about the rights of other property owners as well.

Charles

Click to expand...

You have just made the most ???? statement I have ever heard.
Shop lifters usually put stolen thing into their coats, purses, pockets or ??? so for number one, what does looking at the receipt do? NOTHING, because they almost never looked inside of peoples bags to see if that is what they even bought, and I have watched them many times so what are you talking about and number two I for one am not going to give up my rights so they can feel like they are stopping something, and number three, the main number of employee's proportionately are they cause of theft from putting merchandise out the back door. Sorry it is like Gun Control IT DOES NOT WORK, BUT you can go ahead and keep giving up your rights and thinking like the rest of the sheeple. DUH
Damn these sheeple make me PISSED.

utbagpiper said:

I guess I don't understand this attitude. I don't like thieves. I don't like paying higher prices to make up for losses incurred from theft. I like to see thieves caught.

I don't consider it a loss of my rights to assist a store in minimizing theft.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand this logic. I don't shoplift, so looking at my receipt does nothing to minimize theft.

Grapeshot said:

Once purchased the merchandise and the receipt are my private/personal property.

If they want to accuse me of shop lifting, they are welcome to be my guest - they may be assured they will learn how that works out.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

I guess I don't understand this attitude. I don't like thieves. I don't like paying higher prices to make up for losses incurred from theft. I like to see thieves caught.

As we are anxious to assert our rights, we ought to think about the rights of other property owners as well.

Charles

Click to expand...

Costo and other "membership" stores require you as part of your contract agreement to permit this practice.

Let's look at Wal-Mart loss prevention with open eyes:

1) Employees are instructed to not detain you - major liability issues.
2) BG won't stop, so only the honest get harassed.
3) Greeters are generally retired or elderly - not capable of restraining someone if they had the authority.
4) Their rights end where my rights begin - the stop would be consensual and I do not consent.

So what do they accomplish by asking to see your receipt? IMO, nothing other than convincing the uninformed that they are trying to keep losses down this way.... and by providing part time, no benefits low pay, to those in need of work.

When was the last time you saw a shop lifter stopped by a greeter/checker and as a result arrested in a Wal-mart? Ever? I have never, not even once. If such has occassionally occurred, what is the ratio 1/10,00; 1/100,000; 1/1,000,00. Have I made my point yet?

Rick H said:

...snip...Shop lifters usually put stolen thing into their coats, purses, pockets or ??? so for number one, what does looking at the receipt do? NOTHING..snip....

Click to expand...

haha. They must be looking for all those clever crooks who slip an item into their cart between paying at the checkout, and reaching the front door.

So which rights do I give up by abiding a store's policy of checking receipts?

Do I have a right to enter that store and conduct business there? If so, what of the store's rights to set some terms of the agreement?

Some are arguing about whether checking receipts is a worthwhile tactic for reducing shoplifting. Is that not exactly what the anti's do when it comes to our choice to carry firearms? Who would think that having some old duffer greet you at the door improves sales? But some research seems to indicate it does. Does checking receipts reduce theft? Some stores seem to think it does and if they want to implement such a policy do they not have some right to set the terms or conditions on which patrons enter their property?

Grapeshot as much as concedes that Costco has such a right via their membership agreement. So if some other store posts their terms at each entrance does that satisfy concerns? Do we then respect the rights of the property owner?

Let us remember, Walmart, Costco, and other business are NOT the government. They cannot compel us to patronize their stores. On the flip side, they get far more latitude in setting the terms of entry and conducting business than should the post office, city office building, or legislature.

How many of you guys screaming and yelling about Walmart "violating" your "rights" can't legally carry a gun into your own Statehouses or public school classrooms? In Utah, both are perfectly legal for any adult with a permit to carry. And the permit isn't actually needed for OCing (Israeli loaded) anyplace other than schools.

A cop trying to conduct a warrantless search is a violation of my rights and will be objected to most strenuously.

A store employee checking my receipt is a perfectly legal business practice that if it offends me will result in me taking my business elsewhere, not crying about some supposed violation of "rights".

But y'all keep fighting the good fight against receipt checkers if that is what floats your boats.

Charles

Grapeshot said:

Once purchased the merchandise and the receipt are my private/personal property.

If they want to accuse me of shop lifting, they are welcome to be my guest - they may be assured they will learn how that works out.

Click to expand...

At Sam's Club, the checking of the receipt is part of the check-out process. Since they do not bag merchandise and since one can easily proceed to the exit without passing through the checkouts, all receipts are checked at the door against the unbagged products in the carts. This is a reasonable practice, and I understand the reasoning behind it. Therefore, I choose to be a member of Sam's and to submit to having my receipt checked each and every time I leave the club.

?????

utbagpiper said:

So which rights do I give up by abiding a store's policy of checking receipts?

Do I have a right to enter that store and conduct business there? If so, what of the store's rights to set some terms of the agreement?

Some are arguing about whether checking receipts is a worthwhile tactic for reducing shoplifting. Is that not exactly what the anti's do when it comes to our choice to carry firearms? Who would think that having some old duffer greet you at the door improves sales? But some research seems to indicate it does. Does checking receipts reduce theft? Some stores seem to think it does and if they want to implement such a policy do they not have some right to set the terms or conditions on which patrons enter their property?

Grapeshot as much as concedes that Costco has such a right via their membership agreement. So if some other store posts their terms at each entrance does that satisfy concerns? Do we then respect the rights of the property owner?

Let us remember, Walmart, Costco, and other business are NOT the government. They cannot compel us to patronize their stores. On the flip side, they get far more latitude in setting the terms of entry and conducting business than should the post office, city office building, or legislature.

How many of you guys screaming and yelling about Walmart "violating" your "rights" can't legally carry a gun into your own Statehouses or public school classrooms? In Utah, both are perfectly legal for any adult with a permit to carry. And the permit isn't actually needed for OCing (Israeli loaded) anyplace other than schools.

A cop trying to conduct a warrantless search is a violation of my rights and will be objected to most strenuously.

A store employee checking my receipt is a perfectly legal business practice that if it offends me will result in me taking my business elsewhere, not crying about some supposed violation of "rights".

But y'all keep fighting the good fight against receipt checkers if that is what floats your boats.

Charles

Click to expand...

You still don't get it, By letting them check you and/or your property you are letting them call you and every other person that enters their store a criminal and since you are letting them do that then you would Not object to a body-cavity search as well. And don't say now your getting ridiculous because it has to stop somewhere who makes the rules of how far can they go. The United States Constitution does and applies to any and all people either government or private that want to invade your person, place, or property. Some people want to be sheeple and some will not be and I for one will not be anybody's sheeple.
So which rights do I give up by abiding a store's policy of checking receipts?
Yours and mine.
Do I have a right to enter that store and conduct business there? yes If so, what of the store's rights to set some terms of the agreement? If they want to take chance to own a business then they take the chance of having their property stolen. Just as any business owner does when working with the public. For instance lets look at a place like an all you can eat buffet restaurant will you let them check your person to make sure you don't have a bag or other means of taking food, dishes or ???? home with you.
or how about any persons home you visit that you may steal something. dude it is impolite and insulting to call someone a thief or a liar without fact or probable and just cause and in fact just wrong. The old saying goes this way "If you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen". Nobody has the right to detain you for something that you may have done. PERIOD........
Also do you let LEO check you Firearm permit because you are carrying openly or otherwise? Why not? it is the same thing they just want to make sure you are legally carrying.

Rick H said:

You still don't get it, By letting them check you and/or your property you are letting them call you and every other person that enters their store a criminal

Click to expand...

So when I let the airlines or movie theater check that I have a valid ticket rather than just taking my word that I've purchased such a ticket, I am letting them call me a criminal?

Those of us who have joined Costco, Sam's Club or other such stores that make receipt checking a condition of membership are letting them call us criminals?

I think you've failed to make to make your point.

Rick H said:

and since you are letting them do that then you would Not object to a body-cavity search as well.

Click to expand...

Logical fallacy of reducto ad absurbum.

Rick H said:

The United States Constitution does and applies to any and all people either government or private that want to invade your person, place, or property.

Click to expand...

The protections in the bill of rights are a limit on government, NOT on private individuals. There is no first amendment in my home and nothing (printed, electronic, or otherwise) comes into my home without my consent. I actively censor any material I deem inappropriate for myself, my family, or my home.

I am under no legal obligation to allow anyone to practice their religion in my home or in my business.

Anyone who does not understand this very simple concept is in no position to be lecturing anyone on rights theory.

Rick H said:

Do I have a right to enter that store and conduct business there? yes

Click to expand...

Whence comes this right of yours to force a business to associate with you? On what legal basis or under what area of rights theory do you claim such a right?

Rick H said:

If they want to take chance to own a business then they take the chance of having their property stolen.

Click to expand...

And do you accept such limits on your rights when it comes to your personal property? Are you obliged to admit any and all to your property because in owning property you've assumed the risk of having it stolen?

What a ridiculous position.

Current law--offensive as it is to pure rights theory--does not allow a place of public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, and similar such "immutable" (to use the SCOTUS's unfortunate terminology) characteristics. But even under current law, businesses retain every right to exclude from their property for virtually any reason other than those specifically prohibited. Walmart, for example, makes clear that no person is granted legal admittance for the purpose of acting as a paid price comparison maker. If they have reason to believe you are comparing prices for a competitor, rather than legitimately shopping, they can tell you to leave and you are obliged to do so.

If a store wants to make receipt checking an explicit condition of entry, then you have two choices: enter and comply or don't enter.

Their statutory ability to demand checking of receipts absent such an explicit policy may be in question. But the right to do so cannot be questioned by anyone who claims to know a thing about rights theory.

Rick H said:

or how about any persons home you visit that you may steal something. dude it is impolite and insulting to call someone a thief or a liar without fact or probable and just cause and in fact just wrong.

Click to expand...

There is a material difference between "rude and insulting" and "illegal" or even "contrary to any sensible understanding of rights."

You clearly chose to be insulted by modest measures to reduce theft. I choose to view them as the right of the property owner and so long as they are not onerous to me, I will not view them as a reason to take my business elsewhere. If I do view them (or ANY other policy) as overly burdensome, I will not pretend I have some right to force the business to conduct itself in one way or another, I will just take my business elsewhere.

When I risk my time and fortune to start a business I will set the rules. Until then, I will grant the greatest latitude possible to those who do undertake such risks to set whatever rules they like. I will vote with my pocketbook as to which rules I think are acceptable and which I think are offensive.

Rick H said:

The old saying goes this way "If you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen". Nobody has the right to detain you for something that you may have done. PERIOD........
Also do you let LEO check you Firearm permit because you are carrying openly or otherwise? Why not? it is the same thing they just want to make sure you are legally carrying.

Click to expand...

Again, that you cannot distinguish the difference between a voluntary association such as when you choose to patronize a store, and the mandatory relationship between you and your agent the government is very troubling.

I trust that you do not belong to any of the club stores that make receipt checking a mandatory and explicit part of the membership.

Charles

Charles:

How rational.

And patient. Incredibly patient.

The club store/membership has already been determined to have no bearing on Wal-Mart. Those making an attempt to connect the two different types of establishments should cease.

The comparison of being checked for a valid airline ticket is totally without merit as would be checking your movie ticket or any other form of paid admission - in buying the ticket you enter into an agreement for a set term and purpose (there are other conditions).

Can Wal-Mart incorporate any legal rules for their customers? Yes and they must give adequate notice of these to have much more authority other to ask you to leave ....... if you are still there.

IMO - is is not those of us that object to the foolish and presently unenforceable policy of asking (that's all it is) to check your receipt against your merchandise that is making a show of attitude; rather it is those with straw man arguments who toss red herrings about. Those that stand up for their personal rights are no less advocates for RKBA (in fact the entire Constitution), and that, sir, "floats my boat".

When someone stated that he would not show a receipt in any store, he kinda widened the topic. Kinda made the situation at Sam's necessary to refute the "any store" bit.

Bringing it back around to Wal-Mart: I often refuse the bag. As a common courtesy (to quote Sidney Poitier, "Common: no big deal"), I show the product I purchased and the receipt to the person at the door without even being asked.

eye95 said:

When someone stated that he would not show a receipt in any store, he kinda widened the topic. Kinda made the situation at Sam's necessary to refute the "any store" bit.

Bringing it back around to Wal-Mart: I often refuse the bag. As a common courtesy (to quote Sidney Poitier, "Common: no big deal"), I show the product I purchased and the receipt to the person at the door without even being asked.

Click to expand...

The OP is about Wal-Mart and the thread continues to be about Wal-Mart policy.
IF someone referred to "any store" that has been answered several times quite clearly - continued reference is no less OT than are those posts about religion on this thread.