Go to Walmart, Get Deported

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Why is it discrimination? Shoplifting laws are intentionally severe. It doesn't matter if you shoplift a pack of gum or a LCD TV, they handle you the same way initially. Plus, if it resulted in finding additional crimes and a deportation, then GREAT!

When I was 6, my mom threw some clothes in my baby brothers stroller. They got mixed around and covered up by his blanket, we checked out, went to the car, and she discovered them. She immediately took them back inside to turn them in, but she was detained, the police came, DCF came, it was a huge fiasco, but eventually we were all sent home unscathed. My Mom is a regular white women, shopping at Sears in the 80's in the Midwest before all this politically correct crap!

Shoplifting is shoplifting, illegal is illegal, and consequences are consequences!! This isn't discrimination, this is just following the law.

reply to post by getreadyalready


1. According to the article, nothing was shoplifted. The product they were accused to stealing was listed on the receipt as paid and the store security footage showed the couple scanning the product.

2. I think the "discrimination" part comes into play when the security guard calls the women and her husband "illegals" and threatens to have them deported.

The Bonins left and showed their receipt to the greeter and door guard, who accused them of stealing the neck bones. According to the complaint, things got out of hand pretty fast: "Plaintiff told these employees to look again as the item was on the bottom of the receipt and therefore accounted for. The security guard started screaming and asked to see the identifications of the plaintiff and her husband. The security guard screamed at the plaintiff and her husband saying they were going to be deported. The security guard, in overly loud voice, stated plaintiff and her husband were illegal and what were they doing in this country. Plaintiff asked for the assistant manager. The security guard answered by saying plaintiff and her husband were going to jail."

reply to post by MrWendal

2. I think the "discrimination" part comes into play when the security guard calls the women and her husband "illegals" and threatens to have them deported.

Unless he was correct, and it seems he was.

I see nothing wrong with profiling. If I am accosted by a 5' 2" white female in a red shirt, I don't want the police searching for 6' black men. If I show up in my frat boy pink button up, in a drug infested neighborhood driving a new camaro, the police need to look into my intentions. If a ghetto whip on 24" dubs comes slowly creeping through a gated community while most people are gone away to work, the police need to know what their intentions are. Perhaps I have a friend in that bad neighborhood, perhaps the ghetto whip is looking for a worksite and he is a sheetrocker, fine, there is still nothing wrong with profiling.

If a security guard at a WalMart sees a specific genre of folks constantly using the same method of operation, he should have the power to profile that M.O. and make an inquiry. If the merchandise is on the receipt, fine. If they happen to be here illegally, then an alert and vigilant citizen has helped to stop a crime, and they should be praised. It is a crime to be here illegally, even if they are not shoplifting.

And this isn't a rant against Hispanics. The majority of illegals in my area are here on expired student visas. They are primarily European or Asian. The school and the authorities need to be checking visas anytime they encounter someone.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Did you just say that a security guard at Walmart needs to profile shoppers?

So you're saying he should focus on harassing minorities while assuming white shoppers wouldn't steal?

Maybe minorities should wear a visible patch to make it easier for security guards to identify who is more likely to steal based on their ethnicity? That way ALL Americans can disassociate themselves from those suspicious minorities. Hell, why not just come up with a final solution so profiling wouldn't even have to be necessary. Sounds like a jolly good idea

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I didn't say anything about minorities. I guess you assumed that. Freudian slip?

I said "If a security guard at a WalMart sees a specific genre of folks constantly using the same method of operation, he should have the power to profile that M.O. and make an inquiry." That security guard would be remiss in his duties if he didn't explore every suspected person using that method.

For example:
If white boys in tattered jeans and wife beaters commonly come in groups of 3 and peruse the music aisles, with 2 paying close attention to the other shoppers and cameras while 1 is hunkered over the merchandise pretending to read labels, and they get caught shoplifting. And it happens more than once, then the security guard needs to have the intelligence and the right to look for exactly that scenario. It isn't discrimination if he begins questioning every group of white boys in tattered jeans in groups in the music aisle.

If hispanics, with children, are routinely using chaotic kids, to put extra merchandise in their bags as they check out, and not scanning it properly, and the security guard has caught people using this procedure in the past, then the security guard needs to be looking for that procedure in the future.

It is not discrimination, if it is based in personal experience and/or fact.

reply to post by getreadyalready


What does any of your post have to do with the article? The couple did nothing wrong nor did they do anything suspicious. If they were out to steal, why would they try to steal a bag of chicken neck bones?

Like I mentioned, I have security training. I know what activity to look for but profiling people is a big no-no. Perhaps the rules are different in the US though.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

but it seems like a pretty clear story of discrimination by Walmart security. It sounds like the security guard needs a good swiftkick to the face for his ignorance if you ask me.

This was the vast majority of your contribution to the OP. The rest of the OP was the quote from the article.

My comments are pointed directly to your accusation that this is discrimination, and that the security guard deserves a kick to the face.

The security guard was doing exactly what they pay him to do. AND, it turns out the husband was committing a crime by being here illegally. Sure, the shoplifting accusation was a mistake......this time.....but the security guard's actions did result in helping to rectify a crime.

Minorities should not be singled out for any particular reason, but security personnel look for patterns and/or anomalies. This was a case of a security guard following his instinct and inquiring about a pattern and/or an anomaly that he saw, and he turned out to be correct that something was amiss.

The word "discrimination" is so overly misused that it disgusts me! If the exact same scenario would have unfolded with European folks, nobody would be crying discrimination. Why is that? The same actions, the same results, but it is only discrimination if the subject is black or hispanic?

I have been subjected to profiling before. I happen to have always had nice cars, and also had friends in very bad neighborhoods. It was quite common to be searched for drugs, weapons, and cash if I was coming or going from those neighborhoods. I was an anomaly. Fine. It is understandable, the cops are just doing their jobs, and I appreciate the fact that they take their jobs seriously!

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Unless he was correct, and it seems he was.

Not exactly, he claimed the couple was illegal. In this case 1 was, but that is also up for debate. Clearly he was married to a legal citizen.

If a security guard at a WalMart sees a specific genre of folks constantly using the same method of operation, he should have the power to profile that M.O. and make an inquiry. If the merchandise is on the receipt, fine. If they happen to be here illegally, then an alert and vigilant citizen has helped to stop a crime, and they should be praised. It is a crime to be here illegally, even if they are not shoplifting.

For starters, what is this "method of operation" that you are speaking of? Using the self check out? Buying groceries? You also seem to miss another important point. By stopping these people and asking to see a receipt, how exactly does that give an indication of residential status? This Guard had no information at all pertaining to the legal status of this couple's citizenship. He ASSUMED based on their race.

reply to post by MrWendal


I don't know the guard's thought process or the situation in his community, and I don't know the common methods of shoplifting in his store.

I can imagine that a security guard at the checkout end of a Walmart is probably familiar with people using the self-checkout and then not scanning all the merchandise. He is probably also familiar with certain patterns of people using this technique.

Also, if the security guard has experience similar to my own, he can probably make a very good educated guess on who is here legally and who is here illegally. Massive generalization ahead: Illegal Hispanics speak, act, and posture themselves a little differently than legal ones. If a security guard is being paid to notice things like body language, posturing, and attitudes, then he is surely familiar enough to make a very educated guess and be correct a large percentage of the time. There is no harm done in asking the questions.

These people are just upset because they got caught.

They should have moved to Gainesville, GA instead of AL...Because of the chicken processing plants needing low wage workers Mexicans are welcome as long as they obey the law. And with chicken processing plants you'll get all the chicken one could want. Now the women was only found with one pack of chicken necks right. Well shopplifters sometimes will by one of the item that they are stealing in case they get caught they can say they paid for it. I'm just saying...I don't know if this was the case.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The security guard was in no position to care about the citizenship of these people. His job was to protect the assets of the company.

The security guard assumed they were illegals based on racism. He took it upon himself to step into their lives for reasons that were far beyond his job. Even when he had the woman arrested, he took it upon himself to phone the Walmart that she worked at claiming that she was charged with theft and thus she was fired. She was not charged with anything so this is slander, of which he is being sued for.

Don't you get it yet? His actions had nothing to do with his obligation to his job. He did it to be a dick. Mission accomplished.

PS don't you have a problem with the fact that the woman was arrested and put in jail without probable cause? Where was habeus corpus in all this?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Actual Court Filing

OK, so I read all of your link, and I looked for the actual lawsuit filing and it is in the link above.

According to your article, she never paid for the chicken bones, she just had a cashier check the scanner and tell her "Its ok, go ahead and pay." The chicken neck bones never scanned, and therefore she was leaving with merchandise. Your link also goes on to say she was supposedly held for an extended period without bail, refused any rights, and never charged with the crime.

Her lawsuit paperwork names Walmart and 26 other fictitious entities to be named at a later date. She is basically suing everyone that was at the Walmart and the police station that night.

She claims Walmart called INS, which they would not and could not, because of liability such as this lawsuit. More likely the law enforcement entity held her indefinitely because they were verifying citizenship, and they were the ones responsible for her husbands deportation, which is appropriate. No matter how they came into contact with him, it is still their duty to enforce the laws.

All of this happened in 2007, but she only filed the lawsuit in July of this year. Probably after the financial downturn, and she was looking for a scapegoat for her financial situation, but that is just my opinion. I'm sure the press about Arizona and Alabama's immigration laws helped to fuel her thought process.

Also, for those hollering discrimination, Bonin is a name of French origin, and it doesn't indicate anywhere in any source that any of these people were Hispanic. It says they were newlyweds of 2 months, and he was not yet a citizen. It is very possible that she is a regular American, and this was not any type of discrimination.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I don't know the guard's thought process or the situation in his community, and I don't know the common methods of shoplifting in his store.

I can imagine that a security guard at the checkout end of a Walmart is probably familiar with people using the self-checkout and then not scanning all the merchandise. He is probably also familiar with certain patterns of people using this technique.

Also, if the security guard has experience similar to my own, he can probably make a very good educated guess on who is here legally and who is here illegally. Massive generalization ahead: Illegal Hispanics speak, act, and posture themselves a little differently than legal ones. If a security guard is being paid to notice things like body language, posturing, and attitudes, then he is surely familiar enough to make a very educated guess and be correct a large percentage of the time. There is no harm done in asking the questions.

These people are just upset because they got caught.

edit on 3-8-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

So you expect a security guard who is trained to notice things to pay attention to body language, posturing, and attitudes to decide that these customers where illegal aliens.... but yet he is so dumb he failed to notice that the item he was accusing them of stealing was listed on the bottom of the receipt?

You claim there is no harm done is asking questions, I claim it is none of his business!! He is a security guard, not the FBI, not the police. This guy has no authority at all and can not even give me a parking ticket. Yet he is supposed to be so well trained that he can ask questions regarding things that are not even apart of his job description? Come on

reply to post by MrWendal


Google it.

Depending on the source you read, it varies whether or not the chicken bones were actually paid for. Most of the less-biased sources say the scanner never properly read the items, but another cashier let them go on through without paying. The door greeter, and security guard noticed the discrepancy and halted them. The police ended up taking them to jail, so obviously they had not paid for the items, and therefore they were not on the receipt.

The security guard was the only one actually doing his job. The cashier supervisor, and assistant manager were not doing their jobs, they were being lazy.

The police did their jobs, by making the arrest, and then subsequently finding out the husband was illegal.

And, now, 3 years later, they decided to file a lawsuit? After Alabama starts getting heat for its immigration laws?

Now, come on, who do you really think is acting suspicious here? The lawsuit filers, or the law enforcement and security guard?

reply to post by brokedown


If you're married to a legal citizen, you are then a legal citizen as per US law. Even if he didn't have the paperwork. Obviously she was a citizen and married in the states, this makes him a citizen that is the law.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Google it.

Depending on the source you read, it varies whether or not the chicken bones were actually paid for. Most of the less-biased sources say the scanner never properly read the items, but another cashier let them go on through without paying. The door greeter, and security guard noticed the discrepancy and halted them. The police ended up taking them to jail, so obviously they had not paid for the items, and therefore they were not on the receipt.

The security guard was the only one actually doing his job. The cashier supervisor, and assistant manager were not doing their jobs, they were being lazy.

The police did their jobs, by making the arrest, and then subsequently finding out the husband was illegal.

And, now, 3 years later, they decided to file a lawsuit? After Alabama starts getting heat for its immigration laws?

Now, come on, who do you really think is acting suspicious here? The lawsuit filers, or the law enforcement and security guard?

If the cashier said that, then the manager etc did too, telling them it was ok... then they are at neglegent fault. They are the ones who should be sued. Wal-Mart hired idiots and this happens, Wal-Mart IS liable. Maybe they did it to make them look like thieves huh? In the Wal Mart I worked in none of the managers would have let them just go on without paying, is the cashier or manager too stupid to type in the numbers for the sku? They are without a doubt 100% liable for this lady's issues, by negligence, by not performing their jobs correctly and I hope all involved were fired from that store, including the security gaurd A%$#WIPE.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I agree with your assessment of the cashier and manager. They seem to be idiots.

The "security guard" was still doing what he was supposed do. In fact, if he is a "loss prevention specialist" then he is specifically tasked with watching the employees as well as the customers. They don't usually call those guys security guards though. They are typically plains clothes and unknown to the employees.

I have a feeling this "security guard" was a minimum wage, unarmed type of fellow that stands at the front door and acts as a deterrent.

I also agree that WalMart has some liability here. That is specifically why they don't normally endorse any of this behavior. Even with WalMart having some liability, I still justice was served.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by brokedown

 

If you're married to a legal citizen, you are then a legal citizen as per US law. Even if he didn't have the paperwork. Obviously she was a citizen and married in the states, this makes him a citizen that is the law.

No your not. It only works that way if you get married legally. If a person is illegally in the US they have to leave the country and then it is 50-50 because they entered or stayed in the US illegally.
-----
Meaning if you met an illegal in America and "fell in love" it would be 99% easier to get the person to sneak back to their home country and get married there then return. It is kind of like driving without a drivers license, getting a ticket and before the court date going for your license.

wall mart barcodes know all.....