Oh, yeah. I assumed Walmart was paying for the service. I volunteer at ballgames and our group pays for extra auxiliary sheriff’s deputies to hang close to the concessions. The school has a contract with the city Police dept.for events and games.
Which SCOTUS decision says that?
I encountered this while popping into a busy Walmart before thanksgiving. I was wondering whether the cops would try an enforce the receipt checking. There was a huge queue to check receipts, which was being done by an employee, but the police were hanging out close by. I ignored the receipt checker and just walked out (for all the reasons listed above). No one noticed as the item I purchased was small.
Does anyone know if the police will take action in these situations? If I’d have done the same with big trolley of items, and been pointed out by the employees, would the police have stopped me from leaving and asked for proof of purchase? Would they have been legally entitled to do so? (or at least stop me leaving if I refused, which I would not have done. They are entitled to ASK me whatever they feel like.).
Yes, they charge $60 for a membership, and there’s a lot you can’t do without a membership. A membership they can revoke if you dont play by their rules.
A lot? I don’t think so. I posted regarding how to get the bulk of benefits without a membership.
I responded to this already. Similarly, Walmart can ban you from entry if you don’t play by their rules.
Nope, just a few thing you can but outside general merchandise, unless you get a friend to buy you the cards.
Walmart can’t take away a $60 card and they dont check upon entering the store, as Costco does.
Wow! Do you not know the difference between “can’t do something” and “can’t do something unless…”? You said there’s a lot you can’t do without a membership. I keep posting that you can. One way is to have someone buy you a gift card.
You’re correct on the first part of that statement, incorrect on the second. Tell the checker that you have a gift card, are shopping for liquor or going to the pharmacy, and there’s no check. And it has nothing to do with anything. This:
“They are allowed to demand your receipt. Walmart is not.”
Is wrong.
The answer to the last question is “no.” The police can not detain you without reasonable suspicion, and not submitting to a checkpoint stop you aren’t required to does not entail reasonable suspicion.
Warren v. District of Columbia for starters. Then the list goes on.
The courts have ruled a mulitple times on this, and refused to take some cases due to it’s precedent. This has been discussed several times on these boards so I’m sure someone will come along post the actual cases. There are a lot of them from SCOTUS on down.
Hate to have to blind you with the awful truth but “Serve and Protect” means serve and protect the government entity one is employed by. Officers get told that the first week in the academy. The look on their faces is priceless. You’d think after 2-4 years of criminal justice college they’d have been told that already.
I’m sad to here that. Further more, you mean it takes 2-4 years to become a cop?? Seems excessive for what they are paid (around here, YMMV)
I suspected that to be the case. But it wouldn’t change my actions, if they had got involved I would have definitely shown them my receipt.
The set of things a cop is allowed, by the strict definition of the law, to do is very different to what they can in practice get away without repercussions (to them, very bad ones for you).
What he’d have done if he’d made be go to the back of the huge receipt checking line I don’t know, but I’d most likely obeyed cursing quietly to myself.
In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain.
When I was hired for my first career in 1982 all it took was a high school diploma. Over the years I eventually received my Associates, then Bachelor, then a Masters.
The police academy itself is now a minimum of 720 hours (18 weeks). Class A cities like Milwaukee and agencies like State Patrol may have longer academies. I believe theirs are 26 weeks.
When I first got hired it was 240 hours. After I retired I took a 2nd career with another agency. My paltry 240 hour certification is grandfathered of course.
Well, I have a re-newed respect.
Warren v. District of Columbia did not conclude that the “primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function.”
However, I asked you for a SCOTUS decision.
The first sentence of that article:
“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
is incorrect. That is, it’s incorrect if it’s to be interpreted to mean all people in all circumstances (which seemed to be the author’s intent) rather than literally “a person” in a specific type of circumstance.
In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, “the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order.” It’s a right to sue case.
That’s not a ruling saying “the police don’t have a duty to protect, ever.”
Apparently that’s a myth others also believe according to my second cite below.
https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/jointeam/applicant.cfm
https://city.milwaukee.gov/fpc/Jobs/Police-Officer/Myths-about-Police-Hiring.htm
No it’s not a myth. your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules. The state allows some of their academy training to be used as credits. The academies for other agencies that are held at tech colleges can also be used.
Per my contact at DOJ the state is changing this to prevent anyone from even applying without the degree. What has been happening is officers have been failing to obtain the degree and then are losing their certification over it. It’s a clusterfuck to the agency when that happens.
you will be hard pressed to find an agency that will actually hire anyone without the degree. They simply will not risk it.
I never said that.
But I challenge you to find a case which ruled the police DO have a duty to protect.
And my statement about maintaining order so the governmental unit may function stands. It may be an unofficial dirty little secret, but it is it’s primary role whether you like it or not.
If that’s true, it still makes your claim wrong, doesn’t it?
But it’s not true. Here are the requirements for the Village of Oregon:
Same educational requirements in non-class A cities.
Which if accurate, means they haven’t yet. The two cities I provided cites for are still accepting applications without college credits, let alone a degree. Same for Oregon, WI.
I doubt that. That sets them up for a lawsuit. Also, you said one can’t even apply.
Really? What were you saying when you posted this?:
Unofficial? You said this (bolding mine):
I didn’t make that claim; the burden of proof is on you.
No it doesn’t. An agency can have qualifications in excess of state mandates. Several agencies require transcripts be turned in with the application. Including Racine, Adams, Appleton, Fond du Lac, Greenfield , etc… just to name a few that are currently recruiting.
And there are agencies that won’t hire unless the applicant is already certified, which means they either went through the academy with another agency or went through on their own which is possible in this state but rather expensive. If the new requirements don’t go into effect until after the first of the year, then I’m off by 2 weeks. BFD.
The courts routinely rule that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals. Who do you think they are here for then? The public mission statement may make you feel all warm and fuzzy, Cupcake, but it’s not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The established role of law enforcement is to maintain order so the governmental unit it serves may continue to function. Sorry if this breaks your heart.
Yes, it does. If the qualifications are in excess, that’s not what was being referred to. If the qualifications are not in excess, which was the case in all my cites and this was your claim:
“you will be hard pressed to find an agency that will actually hire anyone without the degree. They simply will not risk it.”
then not hiring someone because they don’t have a qualification not necessary by that department’s listed qualifications opens them up to a lawsuit. YOU claimed:
“In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain.”
I showed you that wasn’t true. Then you claimed I was wrong, followed by “your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules”, which if were true, means I wasn’t wrong. I then showed you it it’s not true that you must have the educational requirements you claimed in non-class A cities, which you conveniently ignored.
You said that already. Are you going to answer the questions in my last post, the one where I exposed your contradictions and you are ignoring, or are you going to just declare things to be true like what you claim is the “established” role of law enforcement and call me Cupcake and falsely claim that you’ve broken my heart?
Here is a decent law review article. The “Background” section gives a good overview of it. It is called the public duty doctrine. The article explains it better, but it is the basic tort idea that the police have a duty to protect the public as a whole, and owes no duty to a particular individual , and cannot therefore be sued for a failure to protect an individual in an individual circumstance.
Some states have abolished the doctrine, but most retain it as do the feds.