Wal Mart Self Checkout Arrest Ripoff Stuart Florida

  Let me guess, she was innocent. I bet she did not plead not guilty and probably took a plea agreement. If I was innocent, I would have taken it to court. Don't act like she was an innocent pawn in all this. As for the camera zooming into her breasts, most cameras are on the roof and if anyone was able to look at the video, I am sure that they would not think that the security was zooming into her breasts. Why don't people take responsibility for their actions? That is what is wrong with this country today!!!

Your wife made a mistake and the machine caught it. The problem is not the technology it's the operator. We always blame technology on our faults.

She should look at her receipt in the future (as we all should). Who cares what the security guard was looking at, the fact remains, she was at fault.

This report should be about your wife, not Walmart. If she doesn't know how to use it properly, tell her not to use it at all.

The defense that the video shows the OP's wife scanning all items is pretty flimsy. It's just the act of passing an item over the scanner- one has to pass the UPC over the scanner. One could hold an item with the UPC facing directly towards themselves and the bottom and upright scanners aren't going to read the UPC. Or one could hold their hand over the UPC.

Bottom line is that everyone who has posted about how they use scanners has been correct- the machine audibly confirms every item scanned as it is registered to the machine. My friends have brought me to Wal-Mart (against my wishes) and have used the scanners- they work pretty much the same as Smith's or Von's or Albertson's, etc.

I wouldn't have too much faith in any videotape of a client scanning 'every item'. I'd want the video for discovery but the opposition could easily point to the testimony of Wal-Mart staff, the items missing from the receipt in possession of the OP's wife, and bring up the fact that maybe the UPCs were faced away from the scanners.

I have been charged twice for the same item even though the scanner indicated only one item. The scale did detect an error nor did the scanner. I have been to stores that had bad scanners and bought 5 items and was charged for six. I was the only person using the self checkout and the item was too big to hide and was heavy enough to be weighed (it weighed more than 2 pounds). The cashier at the self checkouts came over when I asked for help and i showed the receipt to her. It showed all of the items on the bagging area plus an extra gallon of paint. I did not scan the paint twice as one gallon was in number two position on the receipt and the the other gallon was number five. The cashier was watching me all the time and knew I was not trying to steal a gallon of paint,she said that these machines do make mistakes. I am not trying to defend anyone just pointing out that the checkouts aren't perfect.

the rebuttals by the original poster do make no sense...anyone usign the self checkout should be making sure on the screen that the item was scanned. if the item was not scanned, you would know it unless by a small chance or error you missed it on the screen, then in that case it's still your fault but you didn't steal items or do it intentionally. It is not the fault of the computer that the human didn't know if items were or weren't scanned. You can't go to a self check out and run items thru just hoping by chance they scanned- you will know it. By not doing so, is irresponsible and solely teh fault of the person checking the items out. If a human didn't check out an item and the computer did not 'warn' them of it (which I don't believe happens anyway), that's nto the fault of the computer or system but of the person...who's failing to keep tabs on the checkout screen- which any cashier does as well. If you decide to use the self checkout it's your job to make sure every item is scanned not the computer's job. Computer system glitch or not, the only way this could have occurred is if your wife or anyone had attempted scanning the items and irresponsibly not kept tabs on the screen...in that case it's still 'THEIR" fault but a case of neglect ignorance and irresponsibility. If they attempted or made it look like they pretended to scan items, in an attempt to make it appear they tried but intentionally didn't care to or attempted scanning and noticed the no scan but put it in the bag...which is probably what happened if it wasn't carelessness, then that's theft...or of course failed to attempt to scan them period....but even attempts to scan the items is not proof of no theft because it is more than likely that someone would pretend to scan an item or notice it didn't get scanned and just let it go and put it in the bag...carelessness and not monitoring the screen is the 2nd possibility...in this case...I doubt a computer glitch was the problem or badly operating system...the human was the cause of error...

I've only used those checkers a couple of times but this is how they usually work for me. I run the item over the scanner and watch the price pop up on the screen. It then asks me if I'm done and I hit yes and feed in the cash. Now we get to the heart of your problem. Did she scan all the items and the scanner didn't POST those items for purchase OR did she "forget" to scan several items? Your goings on about "highly paid security", which I seriouly doubt, help at the register, which you state she she received, Walmart's oversteping their guidelines, it's their guidelines, the shortcomimgs of their technology and paid workers and their abuse of police powers. All of these sound like a smoke screen. If she had been paying attention, she would have noticed which items did or didn't post for purchase.

Thank you all for your comments-questions!

Countless number of people are subjected to these types of machine errors.
You cannot put a Canadian quarter in a coke machine in order for it to vend.

Machine errors and consumers input helps us to improve technology. I can bet that thousands of individuals knowingly or not have past through one of these devices questioning themselves.

Enough said, it is only a matter of time before this technology is revamped.

There will come a day when all checkouts are computerized, operated without a doubt. However, until that day arrives these machines must all be removed in order to ensure our god given rights are not challenged.

We all should strive for perfection to secure our freedoms.

Thank you all for your comments-questions!

Countless number of people are subjected to these types of machine errors.
You cannot put a Canadian quarter in a coke machine in order for it to vend.

Machine errors and consumers input helps us to improve technology. I can bet that thousands of individuals knowingly or not have past through one of these devices questioning themselves.

Enough said, it is only a matter of time before this technology is revamped.

There will come a day when all checkouts are computerized, operated without a doubt. However, until that day arrives these machines must all be removed in order to ensure our god given rights are not challenged.

We all should strive for perfection to secure our freedoms.

......and anyone that has had a speeding ticket should get that eliminated because they don't make the cars with the ability to only go so fast.

Your reasoning is not correct and just an excuse. Any responsible person checking out should be watching the CHECKOUT SCREEN where it will list EVERY ITEM SCANNED. That is the bottom line

It really cracks me up how people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and insist that someone else is to blame.

No one to blame here except the person who did not scan all the items.

Sorry, Cbug, but it does your wife only harm to answer a direct question for which a yes of no response was merited with something evasive like:
"Clearly ever item past over the scanner was placed in a bag on the bag rack. The bag rack should check product weight and match it to the product identification or UPC code. If a product does not scan then the system is designed to immediately halt and say 'Unidentified item in bagging area, please remove item' then freeze from scanning any additional items and notify a clerk."

If you had seen her on the tape scanning every item, then you would have said that the tape showed her doing so. Instead, you only are digging her more deeply into the GUILTY verdict by trying to avoid answering such a simple question. Finishing your answer with an allegation that everyone who has attempted to steal something from a self-checkout is the "victim" of a computer system only serves to make you look desperate for a defense or a way to deflect attention from whatever your wife may have done.

I STRONGLY advise you not to try such a stunt if this case goes to trial. Judges and juries can smell such antics a mile away - and the prosecutor will be quick to point out evasiveness as well.

Sorry, Cbug, but it does your wife only harm to answer a direct question for which a yes of no response was merited with something evasive like:
"Clearly ever item past over the scanner was placed in a bag on the bag rack. The bag rack should check product weight and match it to the product identification or UPC code. If a product does not scan then the system is designed to immediately halt and say 'Unidentified item in bagging area, please remove item' then freeze from scanning any additional items and notify a clerk."

If you had seen her on the tape scanning every item, then you would have said that the tape showed her doing so. Instead, you only are digging her more deeply into the GUILTY verdict by trying to avoid answering such a simple question. Finishing your answer with an allegation that everyone who has attempted to steal something from a self-checkout is the "victim" of a computer system only serves to make you look desperate for a defense or a way to deflect attention from whatever your wife may have done.

I STRONGLY advise you not to try such a stunt if this case goes to trial. Judges and juries can smell such antics a mile away - and the prosecutor will be quick to point out evasiveness as well.

Sorry, Cbug, but it does your wife only harm to answer a direct question for which a yes of no response was merited with something evasive like:
"Clearly ever item past over the scanner was placed in a bag on the bag rack. The bag rack should check product weight and match it to the product identification or UPC code. If a product does not scan then the system is designed to immediately halt and say 'Unidentified item in bagging area, please remove item' then freeze from scanning any additional items and notify a clerk."

If you had seen her on the tape scanning every item, then you would have said that the tape showed her doing so. Instead, you only are digging her more deeply into the GUILTY verdict by trying to avoid answering such a simple question. Finishing your answer with an allegation that everyone who has attempted to steal something from a self-checkout is the "victim" of a computer system only serves to make you look desperate for a defense or a way to deflect attention from whatever your wife may have done.

I STRONGLY advise you not to try such a stunt if this case goes to trial. Judges and juries can smell such antics a mile away - and the prosecutor will be quick to point out evasiveness as well.

Sorry, Cbug, but it does your wife only harm to answer a direct question for which a yes of no response was merited with something evasive like:
"Clearly ever item past over the scanner was placed in a bag on the bag rack. The bag rack should check product weight and match it to the product identification or UPC code. If a product does not scan then the system is designed to immediately halt and say 'Unidentified item in bagging area, please remove item' then freeze from scanning any additional items and notify a clerk."

If you had seen her on the tape scanning every item, then you would have said that the tape showed her doing so. Instead, you only are digging her more deeply into the GUILTY verdict by trying to avoid answering such a simple question. Finishing your answer with an allegation that everyone who has attempted to steal something from a self-checkout is the "victim" of a computer system only serves to make you look desperate for a defense or a way to deflect attention from whatever your wife may have done.

I STRONGLY advise you not to try such a stunt if this case goes to trial. Judges and juries can smell such antics a mile away - and the prosecutor will be quick to point out evasiveness as well.

Clearly ever item past over the scanner, was placed in a bag on the bag rack. The bag rack should check product weight and match it to the product identification or UPC code. If a product does not scan then the system is designed to immediately halt and say "Unidentified item in bagging area, please remove item" then freeze from scanning any additional items and notify a clerk.

If the bag weight system is altered then the product is not identified. This is contrary to the applied claims stated in the patent.

All persons who have been arrested by all retailers because of a self checkout violation should be exonerated, simply because the self checkout system even in its original design is not without flaws.

As you have seen the tape, did it show your wife attempting to scan the items she is accused of stealing? If it does, then it will be hard for a judge or jury to see her as intending to commit theft. I would think that if it had shown her doing so, you would have mentioned it.

If it does not show her making the effort to scan the items, one is likely to assume that she had the intent to take them without paying AND that you are raising the issue of the camera zooming in on her breasts to try to divert attention from what she did. One might also speculate that you are making such an issue of this in hopes of Wal-Mart dropping charges to avoid some kind of veiled threat of legal action on your wife's part. Protests of "abuse" of police power too often are loudly raised by those who are justly accused simply to confuse the issue and get out of whatever they might have done.

Walmart installed those self checkout counters mostly for those individuals with one or two items. They knew a small percentage of the buying public was going to NOT pay for ALL their items. The looked at the percentages of what it would cost to staff those those checkout counters with humans versus paying for the hardware and software to install the self help checkouts. Even with security and one person monitoring 4 stands, it was still cheaper to install them. It's all a numbers game.

I find it interesting that at certain times ALL of the self help checkouts are closed down. I'm sure walmart has found that at particular times of the day, people are more inclined to "forget" to scan items. They seem to be closed in the evenings(8-10) when the lines are longest, with the fewest cashiers, JUST when you would expect them to be open. But the rats come out at night.

Facts:
Wal mart integration of NCR Corps Fast Lane Checkout Systems is based upon the NCR Claims and Processes as registered in the US Patent office.

The integrated software, scanner along with weight and measures are all integrated to complement one another in order for the machine to properly execute a consumers transaction.

The Fast Lane machine is a ongoing evolving technology that is subject to many user interfaces and incorporates these interfaces of design in order to function accurately.

The design allows the retailer through its software application the ability to change many aspects of the original design.

Example: The retailer may remove the ability for the machine to weigh items after being placed in the bag.

This would allow the retailer to speed up the self checkout process , however the margin for errors also greatly increases, as the machine would not perform as designed, because it would not be able to recognize an unexpected item in the bagging area if an item was not scanned or scanned incorrectly.

Example: The retail can also change the methods of payment also changing the original design, such as cash only.

Through the ability for the retail to make such changes to the software applications removes some of the applied claims of the machines capabilities and increasing the margins of errors as set for in the patent design.

On the day my wife visited Wal Mart this machine was not operating in its original design.

When she placed an item on the scanner and if the scanner did not recognize it or the item was not scanned then placed the item in the bag, the weights and measure application would of stopped and request help from a Wal Mart clerk.

By the machine not operating in its original design she was subjected to inaccuracies beyond her control.

Does Wal Mart and the man made technology of self checkout imply that we must do exactly that? A type of soul checkout, to look into our hearts by leading us in to temptation! I think not. We must understand that you can not move yourself into checkmate or the forth dimension would be crossed.

We must not let computers check our honesty especially if the computers are man made.

Facts:
Wal mart integration of NCR Corps Fast Lane Checkout Systems is based upon the NCR Claims and Processes as registered in the US Patent office.

The integrated software, scanner along with weight and measures are all integrated to complement one another in order for the machine to properly execute a consumers transaction.

The Fast Lane machine is a ongoing evolving technology that is subject to many user interfaces and incorporates these interfaces of design in order to function accurately.

The design allows the retailer through its software application the ability to change many aspects of the original design.

Example: The retailer may remove the ability for the machine to weigh items after being placed in the bag.

This would allow the retailer to speed up the self checkout process , however the margin for errors also greatly increases, as the machine would not perform as designed, because it would not be able to recognize an unexpected item in the bagging area if an item was not scanned or scanned incorrectly.

Example: The retail can also change the methods of payment also changing the original design, such as cash only.

Through the ability for the retail to make such changes to the software applications removes some of the applied claims of the machines capabilities and increasing the margins of errors as set for in the patent design.

On the day my wife visited Wal Mart this machine was not operating in its original design.

When she placed an item on the scanner and if the scanner did not recognize it or the item was not scanned then placed the item in the bag, the weights and measure application would of stopped and request help from a Wal Mart clerk.

By the machine not operating in its original design she was subjected to inaccuracies beyond her control.

Does Wal Mart and the man made technology of self checkout imply that we must do exactly that? A type of soul checkout, to look into our hearts by leading us in to temptation! I think not. We must understand that you can not move yourself into checkmate or the forth dimension would be crossed.

We must not let computers check our honesty especially if the computers are man made.

Facts:
Wal mart integration of NCR Corps Fast Lane Checkout Systems is based upon the NCR Claims and Processes as registered in the US Patent office.

The integrated software, scanner along with weight and measures are all integrated to complement one another in order for the machine to properly execute a consumers transaction.

The Fast Lane machine is a ongoing evolving technology that is subject to many user interfaces and incorporates these interfaces of design in order to function accurately.

The design allows the retailer through its software application the ability to change many aspects of the original design.

Example: The retailer may remove the ability for the machine to weigh items after being placed in the bag.

This would allow the retailer to speed up the self checkout process , however the margin for errors also greatly increases, as the machine would not perform as designed, because it would not be able to recognize an unexpected item in the bagging area if an item was not scanned or scanned incorrectly.

Example: The retail can also change the methods of payment also changing the original design, such as cash only.

Through the ability for the retail to make such changes to the software applications removes some of the applied claims of the machines capabilities and increasing the margins of errors as set for in the patent design.

On the day my wife visited Wal Mart this machine was not operating in its original design.

When she placed an item on the scanner and if the scanner did not recognize it or the item was not scanned then placed the item in the bag, the weights and measure application would of stopped and request help from a Wal Mart clerk.

By the machine not operating in its original design she was subjected to inaccuracies beyond her control.

Does Wal Mart and the man made technology of self checkout imply that we must do exactly that? A type of soul checkout, to look into our hearts by leading us in to temptation! I think not. We must understand that you can not move yourself into checkmate or the forth dimension would be crossed.

We must not let computers check our honesty especially if the computers are man made.

Facts:
Wal mart integration of NCR Corps Fast Lane Checkout Systems is based upon the NCR Claims and Processes as registered in the US Patent office.

The integrated software, scanner along with weight and measures are all integrated to complement one another in order for the machine to properly execute a consumers transaction.

The Fast Lane machine is a ongoing evolving technology that is subject to many user interfaces and incorporates these interfaces of design in order to function accurately.

The design allows the retailer through its software application the ability to change many aspects of the original design.

Example: The retailer may remove the ability for the machine to weigh items after being placed in the bag.

This would allow the retailer to speed up the self checkout process , however the margin for errors also greatly increases, as the machine would not perform as designed, because it would not be able to recognize an unexpected item in the bagging area if an item was not scanned or scanned incorrectly.

Example: The retail can also change the methods of payment also changing the original design, such as cash only.

Through the ability for the retail to make such changes to the software applications removes some of the applied claims of the machines capabilities and increasing the margins of errors as set for in the patent design.

On the day my wife visited Wal Mart this machine was not operating in its original design.

When she placed an item on the scanner and if the scanner did not recognize it or the item was not scanned then placed the item in the bag, the weights and measure application would of stopped and request help from a Wal Mart clerk.

By the machine not operating in its original design she was subjected to inaccuracies beyond her control.

Does Wal Mart and the man made technology of self checkout imply that we must do exactly that? A type of soul checkout, to look into our hearts by leading us in to temptation! I think not. We must understand that you can not move yourself into checkmate or the forth dimension would be crossed.

We must not let computers check our honesty especially if the computers are man made.

Your story is a strange one. I had a issue in the parking lot of my local Walmart. My vehicle was hit by another vehicle while I was inside shopping. After shopping and going outside, I noticed a crumpled rear fender on my ride. They would not allow me to view the video from their outside camera's. I was told that it was a company wide policy. That the only way it could be viewed was to call the police and that they would only allow the police to view it. Not knowing if they really let you view the video or not, they really did not need to show it to you. I doubt that they showed a video to you. After all, they had the receipt that shows you did not pay for everything. That she had items in her cart that were not paid for.

It makes perfect sense that they have video at self-check out stations. You ask why doesn't Wally World have help at the register instead of highly paid security surveillance? Double Duh. She was in a self check out station. The security they use there, is to catch people who do not scan everything. In your wife's case, it seems like the highly paid security people did their job? How much do they make anyway?

You claim that your wife is innocent then follow up with another post that there were some items that she did not pay for?

Your story is a strange one. I had a issue in the parking lot of my local Walmart. My vehicle was hit by another vehicle while I was inside shopping. After shopping and going outside, I noticed a crumpled rear fender on my ride. They would not allow me to view the video from their outside camera's. I was told that it was a company wide policy. That the only way it could be viewed was to call the police and that they would only allow the police to view it. Not knowing if they really let you view the video or not, they really did not need to show it to you. I doubt that they showed a video to you. After all, they had the receipt that shows you did not pay for everything. That she had items in her cart that were not paid for.

It makes perfect sense that they have video at self-check out stations. You ask why doesn't Wally World have help at the register instead of highly paid security surveillance? Double Duh. She was in a self check out station. The security they use there, is to catch people who do not scan everything. In your wife's case, it seems like the highly paid security people did their job? How much do they make anyway?

You claim that your wife is innocent then follow up with another post that there were some items that she did not pay for?

Your story is a strange one. I had a issue in the parking lot of my local Walmart. My vehicle was hit by another vehicle while I was inside shopping. After shopping and going outside, I noticed a crumpled rear fender on my ride. They would not allow me to view the video from their outside camera's. I was told that it was a company wide policy. That the only way it could be viewed was to call the police and that they would only allow the police to view it. Not knowing if they really let you view the video or not, they really did not need to show it to you. I doubt that they showed a video to you. After all, they had the receipt that shows you did not pay for everything. That she had items in her cart that were not paid for.

It makes perfect sense that they have video at self-check out stations. You ask why doesn't Wally World have help at the register instead of highly paid security surveillance? Double Duh. She was in a self check out station. The security they use there, is to catch people who do not scan everything. In your wife's case, it seems like the highly paid security people did their job? How much do they make anyway?

You claim that your wife is innocent then follow up with another post that there were some items that she did not pay for?

Your story is a strange one. I had a issue in the parking lot of my local Walmart. My vehicle was hit by another vehicle while I was inside shopping. After shopping and going outside, I noticed a crumpled rear fender on my ride. They would not allow me to view the video from their outside camera's. I was told that it was a company wide policy. That the only way it could be viewed was to call the police and that they would only allow the police to view it. Not knowing if they really let you view the video or not, they really did not need to show it to you. I doubt that they showed a video to you. After all, they had the receipt that shows you did not pay for everything. That she had items in her cart that were not paid for.

It makes perfect sense that they have video at self-check out stations. You ask why doesn't Wally World have help at the register instead of highly paid security surveillance? Double Duh. She was in a self check out station. The security they use there, is to catch people who do not scan everything. In your wife's case, it seems like the highly paid security people did their job? How much do they make anyway?

You claim that your wife is innocent then follow up with another post that there were some items that she did not pay for?

How could your wife not know that items were not rung up? There's audio and visual confirmation of an item being rung up.

Nonetheless, if you walk out of a store and you didn't pay for the item(s), you're guilty of theft. There's not much wiggle room on this.

How many items didn't ring up, and what was the value of the alleged "unringable" items?

Dozens of items were paid for, however several items did not scan unbeknown to her.

You never completed the story. Did your wife pay for everything or not? If she failed to scan even 1 item, then she is completely at fault and you don't have a leg to stand on.

If what you are saying about the security camera is true however, you do have a case of sexual harassment. But they would argue that it was zooming in on your wife's purchases, and her breasts just got in the way...