Walmart v. Cicero, final report

Ron Jeremy · Jul 31, 2007

Mori, from the video it is strongly debatable (doubtful, IMO) that the W-M employee even touched him. If taking joy in seeing someone assaulted is sound logic, then I guess I am out of touch.

Matt as discussed last week, if our big-shot hero didn't like the policy, he could shop elsewhere. This policy is not new and he knew the receipt inspection was coming when he approached the exit. He chose to take the low road, so let's all pat him on the back.

moribundman · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Mori, from the video it is strongly debatable (doubtful, IMO) that the W-M employee even touched him. If taking joy in seeing someone assaulted is sound logic, then I guess I am out of touch.

A case like this is inherently emotionally charged. As someone who is extremely allergic to anyone getting in my face or touching me (without invitation

), I fully sympathize with anyone who pushes back if he feels assaulted. I'm not saying it's the logic or necessarily right thing to do, but it's an understandable reaction.

The video is truncated and of poor quality. I presume the greeter laid a hand on Cicero, and I am convinced the "fall" was overacted.

moribundman · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

if our big-shot hero didn't like the policy, he could shop elsewhere. This policy is not new and he knew the receipt inspection was coming when he approached the exit. He chose to take the low road, so let's all pat him on the back.

Well, maybe, maybe not. There is no public advisory posted upon entering the premises. I rarely go to Wal, K or any other mart, but I was one day surprised to find a receipt checker.

Gary Allan · Jul 31, 2007

Well, let's ask Ron what he would do if a stranger put his hands on him. Not whether he would have shown the receipt or not ...just what he would do if someone ...anyone .. just put his hands on him in a "OH NO YOU'RE NOT!" (whatever that may be) manner.

I venture/wager that if Ron felt that he was justified (which he surely would do nothing that he doesn't think that he "deserves" to do), he'd tell the person ..with a swift cuff to where ever .."back off JO! Get outta my way!"

That's my projection based on the persona I see through the posts which show absolutely no tolerance for anything outside of his take on things.

GeaugaFletcher · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Mori, from the video it is strongly debatable (doubtful, IMO) that the W-M employee even touched him. If taking joy in seeing someone assaulted is sound logic, then I guess I am out of touch.

You are out of touch, but not for that reason. I didn't see much "joy" in these threads that came directly from the idea of pushing an old man (not middle-aged as you said earlier). I don't understand how security video recorders are of such crummy quality that the images can't be used to actually find out what happened. The video didn't show much other than the old guy's thespian tendency when it comes to falling down.

Quote:

Matt as discussed last week, if our big-shot hero didn't like the policy, he could shop elsewhere. This policy is not new and he knew the receipt inspection was coming when he approached the exit. He chose to take the low road, so let's all pat him on the back.

The low road? As in the low road of protecting privacy and bucking a store's unacceptable policy? So what if it's established policy and to be expected (although my local stores are inconsistent, almost random in "enforcement"), it still stinks and deserves to be challenged whether anybody agrees with cicero's approach or not.

Cicero, I'm glad to hear that charges were dropped. Here's hoping there's no civil action either. I agree with a couple of the other posters - if there's a next time, it might not turn out so well. I hope you carefully pick good battles to fight.

Ron Jeremy · Jul 31, 2007

Gary I would have chosen to boycott W-M eons ago rather then attempt to bluster my way out the door, guns blazing. Because I am bull-headed and opinionated doesn't mean that I would feel justified in assaulting a minimum wage earner trying to do his job. Generally if you treat others with respect, it is returned in kind. Our protagonist in this case tried to usurp W-M's policy (a policy I don't even agree with, BTW) that resulted in an act of violence. Shop elsewhere or write a letter. Picket out front wearing a pink bunny outfit for all I care. All I am saying is that this greeter got assaulted and it is being justified on the basis of many people's prejudice against W-M.

Win · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Quote:

The case was dismissed at the beginning of the trial yesterday.

Don

Click to expand...

You dodged a bullet this time. Next time you may not be so lucky.

Since the original post was terse, and because nobody else has asked, I will: Did it take any restitution to get that dismissal?

I hope the whole thing is behind you now - it must be a big relief to you and your family to get the criminal part behind you.

carlprop · Jul 31, 2007

I guess the details of the case can be made public if Cicero chooses to do so.

Ron Jeremy · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

The low road? As in the low road of protecting privacy and bucking a store's unacceptable policy? So what if it's established policy and to be expected (although my local stores are inconsistent, almost random in "enforcement"), it still stinks and deserves to be challenged whether anybody agrees with cicero's approach or not.

Yes the low road. The high road would be Cicero happily shopping at K-Mart or Target for the last 25 years and not exposing himself and his family to financial and legal hardship. You clowns make Cicero out to look like this guy for crying out loud...

carlprop · Jul 31, 2007

Don't Tread On Me!

Shannow · Jul 31, 2007

Congrats Cicero

GROUCHO MARX · Jul 31, 2007

There shouldn't be a "next time" for anyone here. It's just not worth it.

G-MAN · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

There shouldn't be a "next time" for anyone here. It's just not worth it.

For people with an axe to grind, there's always a "next time."

Al · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Generally if you treat others with respect, it is returned in kind. Our protagonist in this case tried to usurp W-M's policy (a policy I don't even agree with, BTW) that resulted in an act of violence.

I tend to agree.

ThirdeYe · Jul 31, 2007

Am I the only one that has no idea what's going on? What case? Where? Why? Is there an old thread I missed?

moribundman · Jul 31, 2007

Say, Al, do you sometimes wave that old hogleg that you carry around to get some are ee es pea ee cee tee?

MarkC · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

I'm really surprised by the response of those who claim to be "champions of the little guy". I guess I shouldn't be based on the "logic" some of you have used in the past. I guess if your pizza is delivered late tonight, shove the pizza kid to the ground. That will show those Fat Cats at Domino's. Maybe a 7-11 clerk or UPS guy next...

Ron, you're being a bit ridiculous.
If the pizza guy(or anyone else) puts his hands on me, then HE is the one committing the offense. I my response goes too far, yes, I should take responsibility for it, but that doesn't excuse the initial offense by the other party.
Cicero's attitude, motive, whatever, makes no difference if the greeter put his hand on him first.
Why no righteous indignation about that?
Anytime social interaction breaks down into a physical altercation, both people are usually at fault.
For WM and this employee to try to make a huge deal out of this is just as cynical and childish as the actual pushing, shoving, and acting.

G-MAN · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Cicero's attitude, motive, whatever, makes no difference if the greeter put his hand on him first.
Why no righteous indignation about that?

Because Cicero's response was disproportionate, that's why.* Coupled with what seems to be his intent to confront WM and its employees over this policy of checking receipts. He went looking for trouble, and he found it.

*The law of self-defense (justification) always requires that the violence used be proportionate to the threat perceived.

MarkC · Jul 31, 2007

Apparently not in this case.
So, are you saying that if someone punches you, and you punch, kick, and elbow him, he's excused from first punching you?

jmac · Jul 31, 2007

Quote:

Well, let's ask Ron what he would do if a stranger put his hands on him. Not whether he would have shown the receipt or not ...just what he would do if someone ...anyone .. just put his hands on him in a "OH NO YOU'RE NOT!" (whatever that may be) manner.

I venture/wager that if Ron felt that he was justified (which he surely would do nothing that he doesn't think that he "deserves" to do), he'd tell the person ..with a swift cuff to where ever .."back off JO! Get outta my way!"

That's my projection based on the persona I see through the posts which show absolutely no tolerance for anything outside of his take on things.

Thank You! That has been my take throughout these threads too!
From the video it was clear to me that the security checker should get a position doubling as a stunt man, or the only other way he could have fallen like that is if he tripped over his own feet.
What was clear was that more than one zealous W_M employee was attempting to detain the customer, over just not showing a receipt. Private property doesn't even enter into this, for one it is a public place of business, and two detaining without sufficient cause is nowhere acceptable. Not showing a receipt is hardly sufficient cause.
Every W-M I've ever been in, I have never seen a receipt checker under a min age of about 60. No way these elderly checkers are going to be detaining anyone for not showing a receipt. I was always under the impression that it was intentional for this reason that elderly ppl were used in this position. Just to avoid over-zealous employees doing just what happened here.
I'm glad the judge apparently also took the same view, I bet the first question was 'and your reason for detaining this person was?' Ans. He didn't show his receipt. Judge: Case Dismissed!

Walmart v. Cicero, final report

Similar threads