O.T. security

My cousin was at Walmart a nationwide chain store the other day( he works there ). he went outside on break to find that his car had been the victim of a hit and run. so he calls the police and files a police report , the cops say unless theres a witness theres nothing they will do because it happened on private property. and walmart wont allow the police to look at their survalience tapes to figure out who the culprit was.

this isnt the first time ive heard of this at teh same store either, they had probibly 30 or more cameras outside but yet what good do they do
cameras inside yet unless you actually visibly see someone steal something and know exactly where it is you cant stop them. and as soon as they step out the door nobody in the store can touch them its against company policy and you can be fired for stopping that.

tell me folks does this sound smart at all??

my two cents
landlord7012

Not defending them, I think it sucks, but just explaining their logic.

Charles

In this sue happy nation of ours, I find it hard to fault a business for not letting an individual review their security tapes. Let the insurance company deal with it.

My two cents.

Bob

Cop's decision where to spend his time: On some other issue.

I have a hard time believing Wal-Mart wouldn't allow the tape to be viewed.

If the Police wanted to, they know 1) A crime happened and 2) Wal-Mart's security cameras probably have it video taped.

"Hi, Judge, you home? We're coming over to have a Search Warrant signed." "Hey, Mr. Manager -- we're going to get a search warrant for your tapes, make sure you don't allow them to be destroyed."

If you're suing for civil damages, notify them ASAP you're planning to subponea the tapes and not to destroy them. They might destroy the evidence anyway, but at least you notified them asking them not to and that might be worth a little in court later on.

Most likely, Wal-Mart would've cooperated. Or could've been forced to cooperate.

Somethings just aren't worth the effort. Whether that's right or not is another matter.

Hi, youngster

Wal-Mart is just about the foremost example of the current big business attempt to undo a century's worth of employee rights, consumer protection laws, unfair business practice laws, and anti-trust laws, to name a few of the biggies. Corporate America would like to see the market as uncomplicated as it was when William McKinley was president (1897-1901)

Did you ever wonder why things can be produced cheaper in Mexico, or China, or Bangladesh? Because the labor is cheaper there? Yes, but what does that mean? They don't like nice stuff like we do, so they'll work for a few bucks a day? Not really. How about this---you work for what they'll pay you because if you don't have a job you might actually be hungry most of the time. Or this---if you get injured on the job, you're fired. That helps keep the cost of production down. America used to be like that, too.

When people say that all the good production jobs in this country have been exported to third world countries, it goes without saying that the good pay didn't go with them. We can have those jobs back just as soon as we stop demanding to be treated like human beings while we're doing them.

Wal-Mart will close down a store if the workers have any success in organizing to try to get decent working conditions---they've done it! (So has McDonalds, by the way.)

Treating customers like scum is newer, and I'm not sure what that's about. Maybe it's the beginning of an attempt to teach the public to get that nonsense about having basic rights out of their heads.

And why are the police prohibited from doing anything useful? Who pays them, anyway?

Welcome to the future, youngster. It's going to be different.

All the best, Stan

Yes, they sometimes DO kill the little person!

Thanx,
Matt