This is how I handle it. Step 1. Never go to Wal Mart. Step 2. Always carry ID.
Walmart Alcohol Policy...anyone else been denied a sale??
- Thread starter ghost80
- Start date
ive tried their self-checkout lanes before and have multiple problems with them.
1. i always ended up having to wait for the person trying to supervise 4 or more of these things to come over and fix a problem with the transaction anyway.
2. why in the f*ck should i have to use a self checkout to get timely service? i dont work there, im not getting a discount for doing their part of the transaction. as far as im concerned if their answer to long waits to checkout is to add self checkouts then they can gft, i dont have to go there and rarely do anymore.
The person who actually causes something bad to happen should be responsible, not the bar.
Let's be frank about it. The only reason people sue a bar for over serving is because they know the bar has more money to be extracted than the drunk has. There isn't an altruistic reason for suing a bar that served a drunk driver.
Adults should be treated like adults. They should be allowed to make their own decisions and should be solely responsible when they make ones leading to tragedy.
Should have the "option"? Of course they should have the option, they choose their customers. (following public accommodation laws)
Plus, I'm not advocating on the side of Walmart's policy, I was saying what likely would happen. I was pretty sure Hoosier's kids are real young, so I didn't want him thinking he had to leave kids at home to buy the booze that must be necessary for sustaining his life.
I did actually have this happen to me at a Wal Mart. I was with my wife and she didn't have her ID. She was 40 at the time and I was 38. It was for tobacco though, not alcohol.
Let's be "frank" about it, this is far too simplistic in order to fit your skewed view.
Party A drives a car in to the wall of a house kills child. Who should be "responsible", well clearly Party A.
Party B cuts the brake lines of Driver A's car prior to the above. Well clearly B should as well.
But, if you sell intoxicants beyond the point of able driving you don't fit the part of Party B? Come on.
There isn't an "altruistic" reason for suing the drunk either, except for the money. That is pointless drivel.
Your last line is the only important one: "They should be allowed to make their own decisions and should be solely responsible when they make ones leading to tragedy." They can't, that is one of the reasons for the liability on the owner, they can't make "decisions" at least one informed, knowing and intelligent.
You sure about that? I imagine it varies by state, but I don't think in most states you can legally let your kids drink.
My family did. It was our custom as Cajuns and also we lived in Europe for a good bit of my childhood where it is common and accepted.
Maybe in Iowa but I actually think giving your own child alcohol is actually technically illegal in Indiana.
Although to be fair I've had a conversation with a guy who was a cop many years ago about it and he said that he doubts that someone would be arrested for that.
And now that I'm a little bit older I sort of understand that prosecuting someone for that would be deeply unpopular and likely lead to jury nullification anyways.
**update**
Just did a check on this and there is no exception given for parents giving alcohol to their own children.
IC 35-46-1-8 Contributing to the delinquency of a minor Sec. 8. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, induces, or causes a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to commit an act of delinquency (as defined by IC 31-37-1 or IC 31-37-2) commits contributing to delinquency, a Class A misdemeanor.(b) However, the offense described in subsection (a) is
1) a Level 5 felony ifA) the person committing the offense is at least twenty-one(21) years of age and knowingly or intentionally furnishesi) an alcoholic beverage to a person less than eighteen(18) years of age in violation of IC 7.1-5-7-8 when the person committing the offense knew or reasonably should have known that the person furnished the alcoholic beverage was less than eighteen (18) years of age; or(ii) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or a drug (as defined in IC 9-13-2-49.1) in violation of Indiana law; and(B) the consumption, ingestion, or use of the alcoholic beverage, controlled substance, or drug is the proximate cause of the death of any person; and(2) a Level 6 felony if the person committing the offense knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, induces, or causes a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to commit an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult under any of the followingA) IC 35-48-4-1.(B) IC 35-48-4-1.1.(C) IC 35-48-4-2.(D) IC 35-48-4-3.(E) IC 35-48-4-4.(F) IC 35-48-4-4.5.(G) IC 35-48-4-4.6.(H) IC 35-48-4-5IC 35-50-2-6 Subsection b says
A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Last edited:
I love that Indiana puts sad emojis in their laws.Maybe in Iowa but I actually think giving your own child alcohol is actually technically illegal in Indiana.
Although to be fair I've had a conversation with a guy who was a cop many years ago about it and he said that he doubts that someone would be arrested for that.
And now that I'm a little bit older I sort of understand that prosecuting someone for that would be deeply unpopular and likely lead to jury nullification anyways.
**update**
Just did a check on this and there is no exception given for parents giving alcohol to their own children.
IC 35-46-1-8 Contributing to the delinquency of a minor Sec. 8. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, induces, or causes a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to commit an act of delinquency (as defined by IC 31-37-1 or IC 31-37-2) commits contributing to delinquency, a Class A misdemeanor.(b) However, the offense described in subsection (a) is
IC 35-50-2-6 Subsection b says
A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Did....you.....seriously.....just.....type....the.....above....response......
HOLY MOLY!!! WHO HACKED HOOSIER'S ACCOUNT?!?!?
Did....you.....seriously.....just.....type....the.....above....response......
HOLY MOLY!!! WHO HACKED HOOSIER'S ACCOUNT?!?!?
Why would you think I wouldn't believe said things? I tend to shy towards individual parenting decisions more often then not. There has to be reasonable limits but I don't believe it's the state's job to tell us how to raise our children.
This was actually my first thought.
Second thought was that since it's a crime to sell alcohol to minors, and since WalMart is a huge corporation with deep pockets for some parent to sue if they sell alcohol to a minor, and since they are far too large to manage the discretion of every cashier in their employ, it's only good business to have a completely objective, fail-proof policy in place to assure they never break that law and expose themselves to criminal charges and massive lawsuits.
Final thought is, who doesn't have their wallet and driver's license on their person at all times? I've never been to a public place without my wallet on my since I was sixteen.
See it's this kind of thing that makes me believe you don't pay attention to a word I say about anything other then abortion and then just rush in and call me a religious extremist because you saw once that I'm religious.
For the record most religious people that I know tend to trust individual parenting decisions over that of the state.
You can probably understand his confusion if you understand that from his point of view you don't trust the individual to decide if they want to become a parent. That decision you want left to the state.
To have a baby is a state decision. To have a drunk baby is your choice. It does seem a little at odds wouldn't you agree?
Me thinks you are ignoring a step natural, but kudos to you for trying to revive an abortion discussion with Hoosier, lord knows we haven't quite pinned down his viewpoint yet.
That decision is made when that person decided to have sex. Besides even then a person can give their child up for adoption.
I think that's a silly comparison to make.
Also having a drunk *baby* would be unreasonable and honestly so would perhaps having a drunk teenager. My point was that a small amount of alcohol given to a teenage child within the confines of ones own home is not harmful and that should be left up parents.
Again, like Natural, you miss a big step. This time you miss an entire 9 months of a step.
Similar threads
