Yep, and I can ask you to give me $20. We can both say no.

The problem is when the asker goes beyond asking. Like unlawfully detaining someone, or forcing them to have over that sawbuck.

The real issue here is not about theft. Nor is it about convenience. This is a constitutional matter. United States citizens are guaranteed the freedom from warrantless search.

Let me put this into perspective. Stores checking every receipt is no different than police going door to door, searching each home without probable cause for any possible illegal activity. Yes, I’m sure the police would in turn find some illegal possessions. Sure, the could find drugs or weapons, perhaps even find terrorists. Now picture that being your home. You are sitting down eating dinner, the evening news talking about the lovely weather. Suddenly, the police demand entrance into your home to search it. They don’t know whether or not you have anything unlawful. They just know that some people do have such possessions. If you say no, they knock down the door and search anyway. They would look through all the personal belongings. They would dump out doors, rip out walls if needed. Do you think that is really right and lawful? Even Constitutional?

Now picture that with a Wal-Mart employee searching your home, checking your receipts, verifying all your furnishings and clothing, housewares and tools, even electronics came from Wal-Mart. You wouldn’t have that now would you?

I don’t care if you like Wal-Mart, Target, or whomever. I don’t care if you think you really save yourself tons of money there. Wal-Mart is one of the most efficient companies on this planet. My position is not against Wal-Mart, it is against unlawful search.

That makes no sense, which is because it’s almost 100% incorrect. There was an infamous case not long ago where an employee was injured – not on the job – and her medical care was paid for out of her Wal-mart health insurance. When she subsequently received a large settlement from the insurance company of the person who hit her (not on the job, you’ll note), Wal-mart attempted to recover what they had spent on her care from that settlement.

I’m not a big fan of Wal-mart’s practices, but in this particular case they were completely reasonable. If you haven’t seen your cost for health care go up lately then someone else is picking up your bill. A settlement for injury is meant to pay for that injury, and by trying to keep that money for themselves the Shanks were putting their own interests above that of the other people using that insurance – every buck they keep is a buck that insurance can’t pay out for some other sick person.

In the end Wal-mart backed off and let them keep the $417,000, what they kept from the $750,000 settlement after legal fees. Probably the best move overall, but I wonder what that insurance pool will have to cut corners on to make up for that money. I also wonder… where’s the outrage towards the lawyers for the Shanks who kept 45% of that settlement? That $333,000 is almost as much as Wal-mart was attempting to recoup.