Another Wal-Mart “Shoplifting” Nightmare

By Raymond on December 3, 2009 in News 6

On December 3rd, a 15 year old black girl will enter a Juvenile Courtroom in Davenport, Iowa to face charges of shoplifting $39 worth of merchandise from the Wal-Mart superstore on West Kimberly Road. Hundreds of similar incidents take place everyday in the Wal-Mart Empire, and most escape notice by the media.

Destiny Crawford, the 15 year old defendant, denies she stole anything from Wal-Mart. But the ordeal she went through after the alleged incident doesn’t fit the crime.

According to the family, on August 2, 2009, James Crawford Jr. was shopping for groceries at Wal-Mart. James’ teenage sister, Destiny, was in his care while his parents made a short trip to Chicago. Destiny was accompanied by a schoolmate on the shopping trip. While James shopped for necessities, the two teenagers wandered through the aisles, trying on shoes, and looking at trinkets. In the bakery section, the girls met up again with James, who gave them his wallet and a bag of dog food, instructing Destiny to pay for the item with cash at the self-check out and to meet him outside at the car. James waited in a longer line to pay for the groceries with his EBT card.

As the two girls left Wal-Mart, two men–who neither produced identification nor asked the two teenagers for their I.D.–stopped the girls, and accused them of shoplifting. The men physically forced the teenagers back into the store. James saw the men walking his sister and her friend to the other end of the store. He made his way over to the girls and asked the men what was taking place. He was told the teens were being taken to an interrogation room. James stated that he was his sister’s guardian and as a minor she needed to have a parent or guardian present. The Wal-Mart employees told James he wasn’t allowed in the room. A Wal-Mart manager appeared and stated that she would serve as guardian for Destiny. James refused to agree to his sister or her friend being questioned without his presence, and he tried to follow the girls into the interrogation room.

[Read more at HuffPost]

Corporation Watch, Government, Human Rights, Wal-Mart

http://yourpredator.com Hunter C Coch

One more, of the many reasons not to shop at the Wall-mart.
- Word Eater
  
  It's not just Wal-mart and it is more common than you would like to believe. Usually, it's managers forcing younger employees to stay and not allowing them to leave. Kids are in danger because they are often physically less powerful than the adults lording authority over them; they can also be less likely to question an “adult” telling them they have to do something; they do not know their rights as well as an adult and may be afraid to exercise them for fear of getting in trouble.
  
  It is sad but true. These companies, these people think of the places they manage as their own little fiefdom and treat employees (and apparently customers) accordingly.
http://www.xenex.org/ xen

This is one of those instances where the more litigious you are, the better it will be for everyone.
Tuna Ghost

An online search didn’t turn up much beyond the fact that the ruling took place on Oct. 07th, meaning the trial has been done with for some time. There’s no mention of any subpeona or motion of discovery, so the tape was likely never asked for. I wonder how the dude found out about this case.
Tuna Ghost

Far be it from me to defend Wal-Mart or any security personell, but doesn't this story seem a trifle one-sided? The descriptions of the arrest are sensationalized to the point of inaccuracy (an arm bar to take down a 15 year-old girl? That's not what an arm bar does, do they mean a stiff arm?), and the article is from a dude writing an anti-Wal Mart book…

I have no love for Wal-Mart, except as a place from which (contrary to the story) one can easily steal things without any questioning of the morality of one's actions, but I have a deep and abiding hatred for misinformation.
- Tuna Ghost
  
  An online search didn't turn up much beyond the fact that the ruling took place on Oct. 07th, meaning the trial has been done with for some time. There's no mention of any subpeona or motion of discovery, so the tape was likely never asked for. I wonder how the dude found out about this case.