Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 99

Thread: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    or you could simply not make sense and be rambling incoherently as you are prone to do: Threat: An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, or punishment



    Yes, it's unlikely you have either the know how or capabilities to do such. But regardless of that, here we are talking about threats made towards an individual
    Rambling?

    I'm not the one that has a difficult time understanding the difference between an action and talking ****...

    You do realize that words don't beat your ass?

    A threat is protected under the First Amendment, and until an individual acts on that threat THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS....

    The best part is that concept is too difficult for you to understand...

    Do you have any idea how many times tolerant progressives have threatened my life on other boards I frequent? A lot..... It's all words tho - those clowns are to soft to kill a fly and too faint to choose a method and too coward to act as an individual..

    Most people have more bark than bite...

    That's NOT a crime...

    Making good on your threat is a crime...

    Regulating speech our First Amendment IS A CRIME...

    Your ideas are tyrannical de facto.

  2. #82
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    A threat is protected under the First Amendment, and until an individual acts on that threat THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS....
    actually threats are not protected by the first ...

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    actually threats are not protected by the first ...
    In what universe is this?

    No, instead the cops just pull out their magic "I can arrest anyone whenever I want at my discretion card" and call it disorderly conduct like the ****ing authoritarian tyrants they are.

    No, it's NOT against the law.....

    At the same time if you don't blow a cop when he tells you - that is disorderly conduct...

    But you don't know that, yet you probably want to be a cop now don't you? so you can abuse the power?

    Right up your ally (no pun) if you believe someone should be arrested for talking ****....
    Last edited by Mr.Nick; 12-14-13 at 04:21 AM.

  4. #84
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    In what universe is this?
    Defendants in both criminal and civil cases can use the First Amendment as a defense, arguing that their speech should be protected. However, the free speech clause of the Constitution has never been read to protect all speech.[12] Speech such as obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, incitement, and "true threats" is considered outside the protections of the First Amendment.[13] Therefore, the defendant cannot use the First Amendment as a defense for statements which are deemed true threats.
    Even though the Supreme Court has made clear that true threats are punishable, it has not clearly defined what speech constitutes a true threat. The only Supreme Court case to elaborate a holding on the basis of the true threats exception to the First Amendment is United States v. Watts,[14] a per curiam decision which made clear that a law "which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[15] However, the Supreme Court did not provide a specific test for making this distinction.
    To determine when speech is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore not punishable as a threat, most circuits have adopted either a reasonable speaker or a reasonable listener test. Both these tests essentially boil down to an evaluation of whether or not a reasonable recipient of the statement would believe it constituted a true threat.[16] The Supreme Court has never reviewed the differing circuit court tests to determine their constitutionality or the validity of the circuits' interpretations of Watts.
    Most circuits have allowed for the admission of the alleged victim's reaction as evidence of how a reasonable person would interpret the statement. Combined with the reasonable speaker/listener test this makes it possible for people who did not purposely, knowingly, or even recklessly make a threat to be punished for making one. For example, even where the speaker had no expectation that the alleged victim would hear the statement, the speaker can be held liable or convicted of making a threat in most courts.

    I

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Defendants in both criminal and civil cases can use the First Amendment as a defense, arguing that their speech should be protected. However, the free speech clause of the Constitution has never been read to protect all speech.[12] Speech such as obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, incitement, and "true threats" is considered outside the protections of the First Amendment.[13] Therefore, the defendant cannot use the First Amendment as a defense for statements which are deemed true threats.
    Even though the Supreme Court has made clear that true threats are punishable, it has not clearly defined what speech constitutes a true threat. The only Supreme Court case to elaborate a holding on the basis of the true threats exception to the First Amendment is United States v. Watts,[14] a per curiam decision which made clear that a law "which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[15] However, the Supreme Court did not provide a specific test for making this distinction.
    To determine when speech is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore not punishable as a threat, most circuits have adopted either a reasonable speaker or a reasonable listener test. Both these tests essentially boil down to an evaluation of whether or not a reasonable recipient of the statement would believe it constituted a true threat.[16] The Supreme Court has never reviewed the differing circuit court tests to determine their constitutionality or the validity of the circuits' interpretations of Watts.
    Most circuits have allowed for the admission of the alleged victim's reaction as evidence of how a reasonable person would interpret the statement. Combined with the reasonable speaker/listener test this makes it possible for people who did not purposely, knowingly, or even recklessly make a threat to be punished for making one. For example, even where the speaker had no expectation that the alleged victim would hear the statement, the speaker can be held liable or convicted of making a threat in most courts.

    I
    You're obviously ignorant to criminal law...

    You do realize every state has it's own criminal code and state statute?

    You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about and are just posting whatever suits your argument.

    Sorry posting random nonsense doesn't legitimize your argument - you're not even posting a statute - you're posting a general synopsis of "threat" - nothing even remotely close to a criminal code or statute.

    You will never find one- that that you could even if one existed given the notion that you posted this and think it's some sort of citation...

    The charge would be disorderly conduct - in Illinois it's the lowest criminal offense in the books outside of the bizarre... A step below this is traffic tickets, which in Illinois - they don't arrest people for, and don't issue warrants for.

    Learn Something Today!

  6. #86
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    you claimed threats were protected under the first amendment. I cited a document indicating otherwise.

    Pretty straightforward

  7. #87
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    It appears Walmart doesn't mind banning people. Now mind you they weren't banned for being falsely accused of shoplifting but for being ticked off about it. So, moral of story....don't get mad at Walmart even if they are in the wrong. You may say something they don't like and ban you.

    Walmart levies lifetime ban against gay couple - DailyFinance

  8. #88
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,539
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Smaller stores where prices are higher? What exactly are you buying at higher prices in smaller stores? I get my food shopping done in smaller stores because they regularly beat Wal-Mart on just about everything. I'd say the only thing Wal-Mart regularly beats smaller stores in is electronics and things like coke. And hey, I've got the studies to back it up:

    Key Studies on Big-Box Retail & Independent Business | Institute for Local Self-Reliance
    Institute for Local Self Reliance, eh?

    Sorry, but it's all bunk. All of it. I call BS on the whole thing.

    I don't know what small stores you have to shop to get cheap prices. The Salvation Army Thrift Store, maybe?

    Walmart, for example, does ad matching. They will match or beat anyone's prices.

    Look, I know you have a problem with small businesses. You wouldn't be a right winger if you didn't. However, I prefer them for the fact that the money spent in them stays in the community and doesn't go into the pockets of some guy who's never even been to the town. It's a fact, locally owned businesses benefit the community by - prepare for shock - reinvesting the money into their locality. How much does Wal-Mart reinvest in the community?
    You make the argument political? Really? What is liberal about small stores, and why does Obama punish them so much if they are liberal? The idea that big stores don't benefit the community is just another ignorant canard.

    The snobs all came out and protested a new Walmart being built on York here in Houston. The first day the store opened it was packed with customers. It has been packed every day since. It's the people's choice, and I guess that's what liberals don't like about it.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  9. #89
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,017

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Institute for Local Self Reliance, eh?

    Sorry, but it's all bunk. All of it. I call BS on the whole thing.

    I don't know what small stores you have to shop to get cheap prices. The Salvation Army Thrift Store, maybe?

    Walmart, for example, does ad matching. They will match or beat anyone's prices.
    If you had bothered to actually read the link, you'd see the studies are conducted by respected researchers and universities. You not liking the messenger is another story.

    You make the argument political? Really? What is liberal about small stores, and why does Obama punish them so much if they are liberal? The idea that big stores don't benefit the community is just another ignorant canard.

    The snobs all came out and protested a new Walmart being built on York here in Houston. The first day the store opened it was packed with customers. It has been packed every day since. It's the people's choice, and I guess that's what liberals don't like about it.
    None of this debunks anything I have said. Walmart's problems:

    1. It doesn't reinvest in the community. It actually makes them poorer.
    2. It's a corporatist enabled entity.
    3. It's destruction of community environments is well documented.

    Got anything to debunk it? I'll wait.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    12-15-13 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    37

    Re: Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    No, you cant do that........

    For example:

    you cannot advertise that you will be giving away 100 TVs to the first 100 customers and then not give any TV's away just to draw a crowed and attention to your store.

    The same concept applies here - Walmart promoted price matching, and if they didn't meet their own advertisement - they're liable for a foot in their ass.... Banning someone from a store because they're keen on prices as a hobby does NOT justify a booting or libel or slander...

    As a libertarian I generally agree with you but in this case you're absolutely wrong.


    Are you fully aware of what happened? He wasn't even banned for price matching, he was banned for threatening an employee. But that being said, you are wrong. If I am giving away free TV's it can be to who I want. You can't TELL ME whom I have to give TV's to. Now, I would be a jerk to give it to the first 100 black people that walked in, or 100 whites, but I can do it. What I can't do is CHARGE YOU MORE because of your race, etc. But I can decide not to let you in if I want. It's my business. Those signs are in lots of places, and yes, they are true.

    False advertising is different than refusing service to someone. You're stretching, stop it. Refusing service doesn't mean false advertising. You're adding circumstances to your example to make you right that I did not mention in my original post on this topic. Don't do that, it makes your argument look weak.

    We still have freedoms in this country. And freedom in our own private businesses is one of them.
    Last edited by Obamasucks; 12-14-13 at 12:29 PM.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •