(RowJimmy)
Last week, a court in New Jersey fined a 63-year-old admitted shoplifter a total of $258 and barred her from stepping foot into any of the thousands of Walmarts in the U.S.
But when the NY Daily News caught up with the sexagenarian shoplifter for a chat, she dubbed the judge’s ruling “stupid,” and said she planned to appeal.
“The judge can’t say that. He doesn’t own Walmart,” says the woman, who pleaded guilty to trying to sticky-finger some vitamins last December.
Some former prosecutors say she may be correct.
One tells NJ.com that Walmart can ban people if it chooses, but doubts that a municipal judge in New Jersey can impose such a wide-ranging sentence for a simple shoplifting charge.
“It appears to be outside of the purview of the sentencing provisions,” says the former prosecutor, “and it appears to have aspects to it that don’t seem enforceable.”
Another prosecutor-turned-defense-attorney says that the judge “does not have the authority to impose such a sentence.”
However, she does admit to the Daily News that she did once sign a document at a different Walmart agreeing to stay away from the retailer.
Regardless of whether the judge’s sentence holds up or whether that old ban is still in place, the woman says she intends to keep shopping at Walmart and tells the Daily News that “I already have.”
She says she doesn’t shop at the store where she was arrested, and explains that elsewhere it’s just a matter of not doing anything that draws attention to herself: “No one knows me at any other Walmarts.”
Of course, had she not attempted to shoplift in the first place she wouldn’t have to shop around for a Walmart where no one recognizes her.
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
No comments:
Post a Comment