Couple sues Walmart for getting their kids taken away

That just goes back to the standard of child pornagraphy, which is poorly defined by our government. If I was the employee in question I would have used my common sense and if nothing sexual was going on in the pictures or any visible naked adults with the naked children, I wouldn't report it. That should be the very least a thoughful individual could do in that situation. 

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

that's ridiculous. they should definitely get some kind of compensation

GreySeal9

Yeah, Walmart should do the right thing and compensate the couple.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

that's ridiculous. they should definitely get some kind of compensation

jeremiah06

Yeah, Walmart should do the right thing and compensate the couple.

I'm not saying Walmart is at fault or that they should be forced by law to compensate them. I'm just saying that they should do it as a gesture. They don't even have to compensate them with money.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

So much stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also, how can someone land on the registry if they're not convicted yet? There's a huge difference between a charge and a conviction.  Everyone in this article except for the family is stupid. Just stupid.

iHarlequin

Why?

I feel bad for the parents, but he's actually kind of right about that. Taking naked pictures of their kids and then taking them to Walmart to get them developed wasn't the smartest idea in the world.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yeah, Walmart should do the right thing and compensate the couple.

GreySeal9

I'm not saying Walmart is at fault or that they should be forced by law to compensate them. I'm just saying that they should do it as a gesture. They don't even have to compensate them with money.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Not Walmart's fault... they have no choice but to report the photos... the decision of whether or not the kids are taken away is up to child protective services... if they want to sue cps is who they should go after...jeremiah06

I'm not saying Walmart is at fault or that they should be forced by law to compensate them. I'm just saying that they should do it as a gesture. They don't even have to compensate them with money.

Yeah, I guess you're right about that.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm not saying Walmart is at fault or that they should be forced by law to compensate them. I'm just saying that they should do it as a gesture. They don't even have to compensate them with money.

GreySeal9

Yeah, I guess you're right about that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] No thats stupid... If Walmart takes any action in the parents favor it's the same as admitting error... It's the same as taking bruised kids to the hospital or kids telling the teacher they got hit with a frying pan... whether or not it actually happens you have to report it... it falls on CPS and the police to investigate if anything illegal actually took place...jeremiah06

Yeah, I guess you're right about that.

Yeah, I think this couple's only sin is that they were being pretty naive.

The article says something about the naked young girls sprawled out on the floor touching each other. Sounds a tad sexually suggestive. 

It's Maricopa County, aka Hell, home of the psychotic Sheriff Joe. 

What did you expect, justice? The cops in Maricopa County will beat you to death just for looking at them the wrong way. It doesn't surprise me that a couple got put on the sex offender registry for developing photos of their kids. It's par for the course there. 

Arizona is a scary place. It's like an American version of Nazi Germany. You couldn't pay me to set foot there. 

bigfoot2045

Might be going a tad overboard there.

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

It's Maricopa County, aka Hell, home of the psychotic Sheriff Joe. 

What did you expect, justice? The cops in Maricopa County will beat you to death just for looking at them the wrong way. It doesn't surprise me that a couple got put on the sex offender registry for developing photos of their kids. It's par for the course there. 

Arizona is a scary place. It's like an American version of Nazi Germany. You couldn't pay me to set foot there. 

Goyoshi12

Might be going a tad overboard there.

It's not walmart they should be suing, it's the stupid child protection services that took those kids away.  Common sense.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

It's Maricopa County, aka Hell, home of the psychotic Sheriff Joe. 

What did you expect, justice? The cops in Maricopa County will beat you to death just for looking at them the wrong way. It doesn't surprise me that a couple got put on the sex offender registry for developing photos of their kids. It's par for the course there. 

Arizona is a scary place. It's like an American version of Nazi Germany. You couldn't pay me to set foot there. 

Yusuke420

Might be going a tad overboard there.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

that's ridiculous. they should definitely get some kind of compensation

jeremiah06

Yeah, Walmart should do the right thing and compensate the couple.

Hopefully the parents will sue the state for failing to follow due process.Jd1680a

Hope they win a lot of money.Lonelynight

Hope they win a lot of money.Lonelynight

They probably won't. They have to prove some kind of malice, which is not going to happen, or some kind of lapse in procedure on the part of Walmart. The latter is why they are trying to argue that Walmart didn't inform them of their policy. But as Mr. Geezer said, it was probably a result of the couple failing to read the fine print. I think the couple's failure to read the fine print is far more likely than Walmart leaving a gaping hole in their privacy policy.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Hope they win a lot of money.GreySeal9

They probably won't. They have to prove some kind malice, which is not going to happen, or some kind of lapse in prodecure on the part of Walmart. The latter is why they are trying to argue that Walmart didn't inform them of their policy. But as Mr. Geezer said, it was probably a result of the couple failing to read the fine print. I think the couple's failure to read the fine print is far more likely than Walmart leaving a gaping hole in the privacy policy.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Hope they win a lot of money.LJS9502_basic

I wouldn't particularly be happy if the couple ended up having to pay a whole bunch of money on top of what they've all ready gone through. Were their actions pretty stupid? Yes. But it was more of a product of naivety than anything (and so is the lawsuit). Had their stupidity been paired with malice, I would share your attitude.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Hope they win a lot of money.LJS9502_basic

They probably won't. They have to prove some kind malice, which is not going to happen, or some kind of lapse in prodecure on the part of Walmart. The latter is why they are trying to argue that Walmart didn't inform them of their policy. But as Mr. Geezer said, it was probably a result of the couple failing to read the fine print. I think the couple's failure to read the fine print is far more likely than Walmart leaving a gaping hole in the privacy policy.

I really don't know if it's common knowledge or not. I don't know any people who develop photos. :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

They probably won't. They have to prove some kind malice, which is not going to happen, or some kind of lapse in prodecure on the part of Walmart. The latter is why they are trying to argue that Walmart didn't inform them of their policy. But as Mr. Geezer said, it was probably a result of the couple failing to read the fine print. I think the couple's failure to read the fine print is far more likely than Walmart leaving a gaping hole in the privacy policy.

GreySeal9

I really don't know if it's common knowledge or not. I don't know any people who develop photos. :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I thought it was common knowledge by now........LJS9502_basic

I really don't know if it's common knowledge or not. I don't know any people who develop photos. :P

The people I've interviewed that developed photos before digital became the way to go is also a pretty small sample size. :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Hope they win a lot of money.LJS9502_basic

They probably won't. They have to prove some kind malice, which is not going to happen, or some kind of lapse in prodecure on the part of Walmart. The latter is why they are trying to argue that Walmart didn't inform them of their policy. But as Mr. Geezer said, it was probably a result of the couple failing to read the fine print. I think the couple's failure to read the fine print is far more likely than Walmart leaving a gaping hole in the privacy policy.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

It's Maricopa County, aka Hell, home of the psychotic Sheriff Joe. 

What did you expect, justice? The cops in Maricopa County will beat you to death just for looking at them the wrong way. It doesn't surprise me that a couple got put on the sex offender registry for developing photos of their kids. It's par for the course there. 

Arizona is a scary place. It's like an American version of Nazi Germany. You couldn't pay me to set foot there. 

Yusuke420

Might be going a tad overboard there.

We went to Phoenix frequently because my (brown-skinned) wife loved to shop at the big Asian (food) market there. Plus, we have friends there. There wasn't a single instance the cops became problematic. Heck, on one trip, a cop caught me doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. He didn't pull me over though. He tailed me for about 30 seconds after I slowed down (and had a silly "guilty" grin) . Then he sped up a bit and was gone.  

Big companies are too deparate to keep their asses covered.

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

LOXO7

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

Ring_of_fire

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

Ring_of_fire

The sex offender registry is only useful to people living in a fantasy world, where they think it is far more likely some creepy guy will attack their house over a close friend or family member. In the mean time we have people who just make one idiot mistake like streaking a soccer game who have to pay for it for life.Sajo7

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"][QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

Fightingfan

This is why America is soo awesome. You can ruin anyone's life by simply claiming they're a child molester.Fightingfan

I've seen that South Park episode.

The only way I can see Walmart guilty is if they violated some privacy policy or act.  But typically, companies have a duty to report suspected crimes to the authorities.  It's not Walmart that took the kids away.  Employees at a walmart reported photos to the proper authorities.  If their was an injustice done to this couple, it was done by the authorities who proceeded to view the photos, determine supposed guilt, and take action.

So much stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also, how can someone land on the registry if they're not convicted yet? There's a huge difference between a charge and a conviction. Everyone in this article except for the family is stupid. Just stupid.

leviathan91

Sex offender registries are not, by and large, considered to be punitive. You can thank the Supreme Court for that. A major case came to them I believe in the early 90s which challenged Alaska's decision to list on their sex offender list those convicted of sex crimes before the list was created by law. It was challenged on grounds of ex-post-facto constitutional prohibitions, and on the grounds that it effectively constituted a penalty being applied after a sentence had been fully given and fully carried out.

SCOTUS sided with Alaska, declaring the lists to be non-punitive, and so they could be applied with or without a conviction, and applied long after a conviction and a sentence was fully served.

Yes, it's BS, but it's unfortunately the law. The result is that sex offender lists have been used by many States in ways that boggle the imagination. I read an article once about a 10 year old boy who had been in a fight when he was 8 at school. In part of the fight, he hit his opponent in the groin. Apparently, his opponent was a bully and had been egging on fights for a very long time. Regardless, the kid is now permanently on a sex offender list even though he cannot actually be convicted of the crime due to age limitations in his State. The irony of this is that he and his entire family have to live a certain number of miles away from the very school that he is required to attend every day.

jesus, I mean, good for Walmart for erring on the side of caution, but still...pretty damn rediculous. I Wish we did not have to live in the world where we need to assume the worst in people.

mrbojangles25

We don't. We just live in a world where we assume the worst in people.

Why are they suing Walmart? They didn't do anything wrong (assuming they didn't break any privacy laws, which I don't think they did)? Were the Walmart employees incredibly stupid? Yes. Were they doing something wrong? No. They reported what they (stupidly) thought was child pornography, they were trying to do the right thing. It is the police and related agencies that were wrong and actually believed that these photos were pornographic, took the families children away, and put the couple on the sex offender list without a conviction (how the f*** does that happen anyway?). Sueing Walmart just seems like a cash grab.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Losing your children to a government agency is the problem. How can the government have this power over you? Marriage licenses. You asked permission to marry from the government. The product of this marriage is your children. The government now has partial ownership of them. When they determine you are unfit to be a parent they take your children away. Don't ask for permission to marry.

Ring_of_fire

Why are they suing Walmart? They didn't do anything wrong (assuming they didn't break any privacy laws, which I don't think they did)? Were the Walmart employees incredibly stupid? Yes. Were they doing something wrong? No. They reported what they (stupidly) thought was child pornography, they were trying to do the right thing. It is the police and related agencies that were wrong and actually believed that these photos were pornographic, took the families children away, and put the couple on the sex offender list without a conviction (how the f*** does that happen anyway?). Sueing Walmart just seems like a cash grab.

redstorm72

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]This is why America is soo awesome. You can ruin anyone's life by simply claiming they're a child molester.Nibroc420

It's just another way for the man to keep us down. :cool: 

Before this case, I had never heard of this policy either. While I tend to get photos developed elsewhere (I have used film in the last 7 years), I have never heard of said type of poicy anywhere else either. There are many like myself who were photographed as kids sitting in the tub or laying on a rug with my arse out in the open for all to see (I got the copy that my Grandma on my Pop's side of the family had). I would take similar pictures of my kid(s) if I had them. 

It is ludirous to think that people are idiotic or stupid for doing this. It is idiotic for a corporate entity to decide to be the morality police and itis even more ridiculous that Wal-Mart and other photofinishers will not print and give you your picures (I did see this online tonight) if they looked like they have been taken with a "professional" high resolution digital camera so as to not infringe on a copyright of a professional photographer (if you are an amateur photographer) without a signed release from the copyright holder.

This is as bad as when a Winn-Dixie employee called the cops on a woman who spanked her child that was acting up while waiting in line to check out.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]The sex offender registry is only useful to people living in a fantasy world, where they think it is far more likely some creepy guy will attack their house over a close friend or family member. In the mean time we have people who just make one idiot mistake like streaking a soccer game who have to pay for it for life.LJS9502_basic

Walmart is a scummy company, and I hope they lose this case. Rich3232

Yeah, but people just hate Walmart so its ok to sue them. lol. But yes, yours is the logical and sane approach.

I agree, but while I will almost always favor the logical approach, I just don't care when it comes to Wal-Mart.

But how can you be, and stay, on a registry without a conviction? That's madness.

Before this case, I had never heard of this policy either. While I tend to get photos developed elsewhere (I have used film in the last 7 years), I have never heard of said type of poicy anywhere else either. There are many like myself who were photographed as kids sitting in the tub or laying on a rug with my arse out in the open for all to see (I got the copy that my Grandma on my Pop's side of the family had). I would take similar pictures of my kid(s) if I had them. 

It is ludirous to think that people are idiotic or stupid for doing this. It is idiotic for a corporate entity to decide to be the morality police and itis even more ridiculous that Wal-Mart and other photofinishers will not print and give you your picures (I did see this online tonight) if they looked like they have been taken with a "professional" high resolution digital camera so as to not infringe on a copyright of a professional photographer (if you are an amateur photographer) without a signed release from the copyright holder.

This is as bad as when a Winn-Dixie employee called the cops on a woman who spanked her child that was acting up while waiting in line to check out.

 

 

 

 

WhiteKnight77