Refusing to Stop for Anti-Theft Alarm

[Sgtusmc]

It happens a lot. Sometimes I just keep mosying along in no rush to get to my car. Giving them time to catch me if they do indeed feel the need to chase.

One time though, I was walking out of walmart and the alarm went off and the old lady sitting in her chair said "Sir!". So I go back and she sat there just reaching out for me to come to her. I then pretended to dash towards the door and we all got a good laugh.

 

[TheSpark]

It happens a lot. Sometimes I just keep mosying along in no rush to get to my car. Giving them time to catch me if they do indeed feel the need to chase.

One time though, I was walking out of walmart and the alarm went off and the old lady sitting in her chair said "Sir!". So I go back and she sat there just reaching out for me to come to her. I then pretended to dash towards the door and we all got a good laugh.

You do have to love how it is almost always older ladies. If a person was truly shop lifting they are going to run for it no matter what and no 80 year old lady is going to stop them.

I did read on google (on multiple sites) that Walmart has a "no chase" policy. They will only come after you if they caught you on camera or in person. Other stores it seems will come after you but will never force you to comply to avoid legal repercussions.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Ok so I have a crazy Uncle (don't laugh you have one to) He is leaving Wal-Mart with a cart full of stuff. As he goes out the alarm goes off (or as they call it "inventory control system") and they ask him to stop so that they can go through his bags. He told them that once they took his money at the register the item now belong to him. He told them if they wanted to search the bags they could do so at the customer service desk after he returned all of the items. They told him to have a nice day and waved him through.

 

[Gluemanz28]

I used to have one of those RFID things that didn't get deactivated. I would try to go through the detectors on my way in, and set off the alarm, just as someone else was going through to leave. It's even more fun to leave and set one off without having made a purchase. The look on their face when you tell them that you don't have a receipt and keep on walking is priceless. Hiding one under a cart is fun, too.

My wife gives me the elbow shot to the ribs when we are leaving and the person in front of us sets off the alarm and you hear "Please step back you have activated the inventory control system" and I shout stop thief!!!

 

[TheSpark]

Ok so I have a crazy Uncle (don't laugh you have one to) He is leaving Wal-Mart with a cart full of stuff. As he goes out the alarm goes off (or as they call it "inventory control system") and they ask him to stop so that they can go through his bags. He told them that once they took his money at the register the item now belong to him. He told them if they wanted to search the bags they could do so at the customer service desk after he returned all of the items. They told him to have a nice day and waved him through.

That would be a great way of dealing with it.

My wife gives me the elbow shot to the ribs when we are leaving and the person in front of us sets off the alarm and you hear "Please step back you have activated the inventory control system" and I shout stop thief!!!

That would be funny.

 

[88GT]

Maybe not, but that is not your problem imo. You would be giving up your rights if you complied.

You sort of give up your rights on a temporary basis by being on private property. Your rights can only be infringed by the government. Your presence on private property comes with what is called a license. It's an implicit agreement that you will abide by the rules of the property owner or vacate the property. It doesn't really matter what the property owner's rules are, or even if he changes them. Your presence is considered a de facto acceptance of the rules. Your only recourse is removal of your person from the property.

This necessarily means that any exercise of your rights which violate the rules of the property owner are "given up" if you choose to remain on the property.

You still have rights, obviously. Especially if the police are called. Just because you are on anothers property does not give them the right to detain you or nullify any of your rights.

Well, being on someone else's property isn't enough for them to detain you, but they can detain you under certain circumstances. And they can "nullyify" your rights or ask you to leave.

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

I won't stop at Walmart, or anywhere else really, because it takes forever for them to sort things out. I paid, now I'm leaving, deal with it. I love the shocked looks I've gotten the times I've done it at Worst Buy. I will stop at Fry's because 1) they're quick when they check and 2) their service overall rocks. The check at Fry's takes all of 30 seconds, and I'm out the door. Same things for Sam's Club, at least in Greenwood.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

On these same lines - What do you do when a cashier requests your ID when you do a Credit/Debit purchase?

It's against the cardholder's agreement to require a license for purchase with the card... but most stores will say something like "policy".

I've been refused a couple of purchases because I denied showing my ID to a cashier...

One of the times, I showed ID for the beer they rang up, then didn't show them when I ran the card. Blew her mind.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I won't stop at Walmart, or anywhere else really, because it takes forever for them to sort things out. I paid, now I'm leaving, deal with it. I love the shocked looks I've gotten the times I've done it at Worst Buy. I will stop at Fry's because 1) they're quick when they check and 2) their service overall rocks. The check at Fry's takes all of 30 seconds, and I'm out the door. Same things for Sam's Club, at least in Greenwood.

my only complaint with Fry's is how they are set up. Not my fault that its a lousy setup that requires them to check your receipt against the bag. I had one guy though that REALLY pissed me off. He didnt do the typical cursory "yep, looks right." and swiped my receipt with the pen. This guy proceeded to take each and every item out to cross check that each item in the bag was truly what was on the receipt. Really? I was pissed. Its one thing to make sure I didnt stuff some extra stuff in the bag. Its blatant "I think you are trying to steal something so im going to check each item just to make absolutely sure." Kinda like being that one guy that gets a strip search when everyone else gets a pat down.

Ive always wanted to start walking out of the store, and just as I approach the guy with the highlighter, suddenly bolt out the front door for no reason. Just to mess with them.

 

[TheSpark]

You sort of give up your rights on a temporary basis by being on private property. Your rights can only be infringed by the government. Your presence on private property comes with what is called a license. It's an implicit agreement that you will abide by the rules of the property owner or vacate the property. It doesn't really matter what the property owner's rules are, or even if he changes them. Your presence is considered a de facto acceptance of the rules. Your only recourse is removal of your person from the property.

This necessarily means that any exercise of your rights which violate the rules of the property owner are "given up" if you choose to remain on the property.


Well, being on someone else's property isn't enough for them to detain you, but they can detain you under certain circumstances. And they can "nullyify" your rights or ask you to leave.

What do you think most people are doing when they get detected by these things? They are leaving the property. That being said, the "rules" of the property owner are not "law". Of course if you are asked to leave you must or face trespassing charges (if you broke any "rules" or not). But you are not legally bound to really any rule the property owner has for you unless that "rule" is specifically backed by an enforceable law. It does appear some states have it written in their laws that they can detain when those alarms go off, but Indiana is not one of them. So if it is their rule or not, despite you being on their property, it does not matter.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

[video=youtube;7S--VnB1Ffo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S--VnB1Ffo[/video]

 

[88GT]

What do you think most people are doing when they get detected by these things? They are leaving the property.

I made no argument about what people were doing. I simply addressed the fallacy of your argument about the existence of rights on private property owned by other people.

That being said, the "rules" of the property owner are not "law".

You're very good at creating a straw man, but this is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[TheSpark]

I made no argument about what people were doing. I simply addressed the fallacy of your argument about the existence of rights on private property owned by other people.


You're very good at creating a straw man, but this is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You made it sound like rights are given up by entering someone's property. In truth that is not at all the case. There was no "straw man" created there. You said that by entering the property of another is acceptance of their rules. I was just pointing out that even if that is true there is nothing that can be done if you break those rules beyond asking you to leave (I did not try to make it sound like you said their rules were law). When it comes to these alarm systems if you broke their rule while leaving that you must stop and present papers and consent to search it would more or less become void since you were leaving anyways.

 

[88GT]

You made it sound like rights are given up by entering someone's property.

They are, inasmuch as you agree not to exercise those rights if doing so violates the property owner's rules.

There was no "straw man" created there.

Creating a relationship between property rules and laws in an attempt to shore up your argument kind of is, particular when we were not discussing whether or not property rules had the force of law.

You said that by entering the property of another is acceptance of their rules.

Because it is.

I was just pointing out that even if that is true

It is. Why do you continue to doubt me?

there is nothing that can be done if you break those rules beyond asking you to leave.

Not entirely true. If the violating party vacates the property, then the issue is ended, from a legal point of view. If the violating party refuses to leave, then he has technically committed a crime and there is something that can be done. Furthermore, the act which may have resulted in loss of license to be present on the property may have been criminal, and in some cases, a citizen can legally detain another citizen. It will depend on circumstances though. It is not as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

When it comes to these alarm systems if you broke their rule while leaving that you must stop and present papers and consent to search it would more or less become void since you were leaving anyways.

It would. But I don't believe I ever addressed this issue; ergo, I don't think I could have ever argued otherwise.

 

[TheSpark]

They are, inasmuch as you agree not to exercise those rights if doing so violates the property owner's rules.

Not enforceable. All they can do is ask you to leave. No rights given up. Period.

Creating a relationship between property rules and laws in an attempt to shore up your argument kind of is, particular when we were not discussing whether or not property rules had the force of law.

That was not an argument at all. It was a separate, correct, point I was making

It is. Why do you continue to doubt me?

Again, not really doubting you. See above about not being enforceable.

Not entirely true. If the violating party vacates the property, then the issue is ended, from a legal point of view. If the violating party refuses to leave, then he has technically committed a crime and there is something that can be done. Furthermore, the act which may have resulted in loss of license to be present on the property may have been criminal, and in some cases, a citizen can legally detain another citizen. It will depend on circumstances though. It is not as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

Any private property owner can ask you to leave at any time for any reason. No violation of their "rule" instantly makes you guilty of criminal trespass. You must be given an opportunity to leave if originally permitted onto the property. Yes, there are cases when a citizen can detain another citizen, but only if that citizen violated the law or they have probably cause that they did. Again, their rules are not law (again I never claimed you said that, just a point). So they can't detain you for breaking any of their rules.

You are making the mistake of taking everything I said as an argument against what you said. Much of what I said was just me stating a point and in no way contradicting what you said or even necessarily a response to anything you did say (which is where you pulled that "straw man" comment from)

 

[88GT]

Not enforceable. All they can do is ask you to leave. No rights given up. Period.

Voluntary subordination then. Point is you don't have absolute use of them.

That was not an argument at all. It was a separate, correct, point I was making

An irrelevant point. Why bring it up?

Again, not really doubting you. See above about not being enforceable.

Yes enforceable to the point that the property owner CAN prevent you from exercising them on his property.

Any private property owner can ask you to leave at any time for any reason. No violation of their "rule" instantly makes you guilty of criminal trespass. You must be given an opportunity to leave if originally permitted onto the property.

I think you might have missed the part where I said "if one refuses to leave?"

Yes, there are cases when a citizen can detain another citizen, but only if that citizen violated the law or they have probably cause that they did. Again, their rules are not law (again I never claimed you said that, just a point). So they can't detain you for breaking any of their rules.

Again, I think you might have glossed over the part where I made mention of the fact that certain violations could also be criminal acts.

You are making the mistake of taking everything I said as an argument against what you said. Much of what I said was just me stating a point and in no way contradicting what you said or even necessarily a response to anything you did say (which is where you pulled that "straw man" comment from)

Okay, but why quote me if you aren't responding to something I said? In general, quoting and then responding is considered a direct response to the quoted material.

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

my only complaint with Fry's is how they are set up. Not my fault that its a lousy setup that requires them to check your receipt against the bag. I had one guy though that REALLY pissed me off. He didnt do the typical cursory "yep, looks right." and swiped my receipt with the pen. This guy proceeded to take each and every item out to cross check that each item in the bag was truly what was on the receipt. Really? I was pissed. Its one thing to make sure I didnt stuff some extra stuff in the bag. Its blatant "I think you are trying to steal something so im going to check each item just to make absolutely sure." Kinda like being that one guy that gets a strip search when everyone else gets a pat down.

Ive always wanted to start walking out of the store, and just as I approach the guy with the highlighter, suddenly bolt out the front door for no reason. Just to mess with them.

I've never had that problem at Fry's, but then again, I'm 95% of the time just buying one or two things. Fry's is my "Gotta have it today" store, everything else comes from Amazon.

 

[MCgrease08]

Woah, it got heavy in here quick. I heard this was the thread to talk about punching Walmart greeters.

 

[HavokCycle]

Woah, it got heavy in here quick. I heard this was the thread to talk about punching Walmart greeters.

don't argue with 88GT. as right as you may or may not be, its just not worth it

 

[forgop]

Wow-so many internet tough guys that believe they have "rights" in a store attempting to protect THEIR property. I'd love to see them call the cops on you for refusing to stop.

In most cases, it is often an honest mistake by not removing one sort of anti-theft device or another, but get over yourselves.