Walmart Goes Crazy On Couple Suspected Of Shoplifting
Walmart can try to spin itself as being on the side of good all it wants, but if it ever suspects you of shoplifting, you may find that you're powerless to fight back. In the case of a couple accused of shoplifting some Bic lighters in Niles, Michigan this past August, Walmart detained them, the police came and cuffed one of them, their two kids were taken to a security room, and—after a review of security footage proved the couple's innocence—they were banned for life from all Walmarts. To top it off, Walmart's legal team has sent the couple a letter asking to be reimbursed for 10 times the value of the lighters, even though the police determined no shoplifting had taken place.
(It's unclear whether the couple ever actually paid for the Bic lighters in question—the article only specifies that the footage shows they scanned the package of lighters but that the scanner didn't register it.)
The couple in question is gay and their sons are adopted, which may have introduced a whole new level of emotional reactions on both sides of the dispute. The men say their children told them that while they were being held in the security room, the security staff threatened the kids and "had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock's lifestyle." It's not a stretch to imagine that such an attitude, if it existed, carried over into any face-to-face interactions. Meanwhile, the police who showed up and cuffed Paolucci, then forced the two men into the backs of different squad cars, claim that the men were causing a disturbance when they arrived at the scene.
Still, no amount of pro-gay or anti-gay outrage makes it okay for a retailer to place paying customers in such an abusive situation, especially when the retailer's own security footage—which was immediately available for review—shows that if there was any inventory issue it was due to a malfunction of the scanner. But Walmart can get away with it because it can afford to:
Asked if they intend to sue Wal-Mart, Paolucci said he and Hitchcock probably won't because other attorneys have advised them Wal-Mart historically "plays hardball" and isn't prone to settle cases out of court.
"We could spend a couple million dollars to sue them," Paolucci said.
But that doesn't mean there won't be court action. Paolucci and Hitchcock e-mailed The Tribune a copy of a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart seeking 10 times the retail price of the items the store still claims were shoplifted by Paolucci. The letter states the matter will be dropped if Paolucci submits the $158.40 payment.
Fortunately, the men seem to have enough money that they can afford to never shop at the discount retailer again, even if they weren't banned for life. If you're not part of a wealthy two-income family, though... well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team's authority.
(Oh yeah, now I remember why I don't want a Walmart anywhere near where I live.)
*Note: I originally reported the Walmart as being located in Niles, Illinois. However, the South Bend Tribune generally covers areas in Michigan and Indiana, and the couple lives in Buchanan, Michigan, which also has a Niles located nearby. I've updated the post to report the Walmart as being located in Niles, Michigan. -Chris
"Niles couple banned from Wal-Mart after dispute over BIC lighters" [South Bend Tribune] (Thanks to Shanon!)
RELATED
"Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away Over ATM Photo"
(Photo: Brave New Films)
Post a comment
Comments:
Wow, found innocent and still they try and get restitution? That's absurd. I hope that there is a law they are violating here that could get them in some sort of trouble.
How hard is it to act like a fucking human?
I'd like to see that letter hold up in court.
I thought I had read things in the past that said they were not even going to prosecute theft under $25.00.
They really owed this family an apology instead Walmart keeps heaping insult on top of injury. Where do I donate to the legal fund. I really want to see these guys sue. Enough people aggressively sue Walmart for this kind of thing and they might actually behave.
I would say just don't shop there. As others have pointed out sometimes Walmart is literally the only option people can get to.
Astounding the depths that this company will sink to.
Ok, I could see MAYBE handcuffing them until sorting it all out. But once the police decided no shoplifting occured, that should be the end of it. Does WalMart honestly think they have the right to collect money from the couple?
I wonder if small claims would work for them. At the very least, they could get a judgement for the cost of the groceries that went bad while they were being detained, and possibly also get some sort of order invalidating any claim on Wal-Mart's part stemming from this incident.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: Maybe that's the trouble-- Walmart IS acting like a human. This hasn't been a very proud week for our species.
I see a lawsuit in the future. One Walmart will lose.
@bohemian: Yeah, what a difference a couple of years makes. You're right, it wasn't that long ago they said they were ignoring thefts under $25.
Of course they pulled the incredibly bone-headed move of announcing that policy in a press conference, which basically gave every teen in the world carte blanche to come in and steal a CD.
Too bad towns can't ban Walmart for life.
@theSuperman: No, it shouldn't be the end of it. Once the police decided no shoplifting occurred, a final phase of profuse, kind, sincere apologies from Walmart to the couple, together with a free gift card, should have taken place. THEN the end of it!
Using the police report I would sue the crap out of them.
This kind of BS is what makes me want to start a posse of nomadic lawyers. Local consumer activists would give them room and board in their homes and collect donations for filing fees and in return they would spend all their time suing the shit out of these asshole companies that can buy the courts.
Basically all the members of the posse would need to be financially unambitious and totally philanthropic, but I bet you could probably find a couple hundred in the country who would do it. It's a pipe dream but its my pipe dream (one of them anyway).
@skizsrodt: Found innocent? By what competent authority? Because their kids say so? If they were arrested it was because Walmart is pressing charges. It sounds like they've got a pretty solid defense - lacking intent to steal, if that's what the security video actually shows and at that point they MIGHT have viable civil charges against Walmart... in the meantime, Walmart's pressing charges. The DA may well not pursue the case.
What kind if hideous monsters would hijack a couple's developmentally disabled, eleven-year-old children then lock them into a room and disparage their parents while threatening the kids?
Oh. Wal-Mart. In that case, I'm surprised they don't have a section in their employee manual describing how to do this in the most cost-effective manner.
@fantomesq: With videotape evidence that they did not shoplift and a statement from the police that no shoplifting occurred, how would they press charges?
Walmart plays hardball and won't settle out of court? Even better. I'd want that case to see the inside of a courtroom so bad I'd sell everything I had to pay the lawyer bills. Lawsuits are all we really have to protect ourselves from situations like this. By not taking action against them it just encourages them to be even more of an ass to the next person they think is shoplifting.
@fantomesq: They weren't arrested, and their kids have nothing to do with any claims of "innocence."
They were detained in squad cars (one in handcuffs) while the police reviewed the video footage with Walmart personnel. The police then said that upon reviewing the footage, they did not believe any shoplifting had taken place and that they were free to go. At that point, Walmart employees told them they were banned.
Walmart needs to have a tough team fighting their legal battles. They keep getting sued because everyone wants to get a piece of their giant pie.
Even if Wal-Mart doesn't settle things easily, it can easily be clobberin' time for a plaintiff's lawyer, and the couple certainly might know someone willing to take on Wal-Mart in this matter.
These aren't pikers - they know Sam Zell, the 68th richest man in America. A few well-placed letters from someone would be able to solve this very quickly.
Wal-Mart is only giving them grief because they're gay, because they're this big 'christian' organization. How sad. I say sue the living shit out of them.
At the Wallyworld I work at it is the prime location FOR theft. One security guy who doesn't do his job and just kisses managemnt a** and the people at the door could careless if you steal or not, as long as you don't make their job harder.
@theSuperman: I think it's a collection agency masquerading as a regular law firm that sends out letters to *anyone* accused of shoplifting - most states have laws allowing civil actions for money damages for theft (conversion).
Question for any lawyers out there: Is there any reason the police couldn't have arrested the Walmart manager or employees for child kidnapping or child endangerment? As a private entity, it seems unlikely that Walmart was within their rights to detain, frighten or threaten children. They're not law enforcement, they're private citizens involved in a dispute.
@fantomesq: Walmart has no standing to press charges - if the police determined that no crime took place, they won't send the police report to the DA to file a criminal complaint.
@kabuk1: Oh, man, if they could prove that it was motivated by homophobic bias they'd be able to rip Walmart's heart out through it's mouth, legally speaking.
Wal-Mart does not lose in court. They are notorious for pulling all kinds of sleazy and dirt tactics in court, including flat out lying.
I hope they file a discrimination suit, because this is what it shounds like to me. My nephew was recently caught shoplifting at the local WM. He spent 5 days in jail, a $250 fine, and that was the end of it. And he has more on his criminal record than that....so yeah, discrimination.
Also, footage proved their innocence? Wrongful persecution on top of discrimination.
Wal-Mart is not a gay-friendly shopping experience. The check-out cashier? No. The employee working the department? No. It is the security people chasing them all over the store and harassing them. Wal-Mart appears to play cowboy with their security team and allows them to run far more loose than other establishments. Being on the receiving end of the special gay treatment, I can say, it really is sicking to shop at some of their stores.
@skizsrodt: unfortunately no. think oj. he was found criminally innocent. but civilly was found guilty.
How the hell can they ban someone for life across ALL wal-marts?
Wal-mart tried to get my aunt for shoplifting when she walked past the registers with a book in her cart, realized her mistake and went to give it back. Of course she hired lawyers and won her case.
As I'd suggest the couple in this story do.
WalMart is the worst of retail.
@kabuk1: I'd say that the story only mentions their sexual preference to garner outrage from simple minded folks like yourself. If you really believe that Wal-Mart collectively has some anti-gay agenda, and the individual store managers acted this way as a result, then you're quite the sad individual.
Being so quick to point out that every bad thing that happens to gay couples is due solely to their sexual preference (even though nothing supports that here), is just as stupid as legitimate discrimination.
Considering that Walmart is working *hard* to get more stores within Chicago city limits (there is currently only one and it's not a supercenter), this doesn't help their case. I do hope the anti-WM groups and the unions (the main reason Chicago aldermen aren't completely pro-WM) pick this up and use it as fodder.
In this day of excellent online stores with great prices and service, I don't know why anyone would NEED to shop at Walmart's any more.
Once again, we must rely on word of mouth to remind our friends and neighbors to shop elsewhere. If enough of us continue to badmouth and boycott these behemoths, perhaps they too will eventually wither and die like GM.
What's even more amazing -- WalMart did this to two attorneys (read the Tribune article) who DON'T want to sue.
I'm not the litigious type but if that happened to my family I would keep going until justice was complete. And, since my WalMart is in an area when I am a member of the community you better believe I'd not only make sure my record was clear but, in the final agreement settling the matter, if there was even a hint that I was still banned there would be an immediate lawsuit for libel.
@NightSteel: I know, isn't that the only appropriate venue? Or can insane legal fees be included to bump it higher? Still, I don't see a jury ruling against them if it got that far. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist. Bradley v. State
Whats sad is that I can totally picture the security officers hassling the kids about their dads. They probably detain kids all the time for shoplifting and have no problems getting cut throat on them.
@kabuk1: I have never seen Wal Mart specifically identify themselves as a Christian organization. I know they limit what they sell based on some moral code but moral codes are not restricted to Christianity.
This company makes me sad... very, very sad.