http://www.njcsd.org/joomla/index.php?o ... s&Itemid=1

 

One of our members wrote to us recently about trying to get photos printed at a Walgreens Pharmacy in Belleville.

 

The member and his brother are both gun collectors and active members of the community as a whole. The brother recently took photos of his collection for insurance purposes, and emailed them to Walgreens to have them printed.

 

When the brother's wife went to pick up the prints, she was told by the cashier that Walgreens did not print them because they were deemed "offensive".

 

Our member's brother returned to the store and spoke to the manager, who told him that he personally found the pictures offensive, and so did his staff. When the brother asked if it was Walgreens' policy not to print pictures of guns, he refused to give a straight answer.

 

The member's brother contacted Walgreens Main Office on Tuesday December 29th regarding the issue. We'll be following the story.

I see a possible boucott of Walgreens coming. Depending on Corporate response of course.

I wonder if they would print out home made porn pics.

 

It sucks as to what happened, but I doubt they are breaking any laws. I am sure Walgreens will apologize for what happened, but will stand by employees. Then again... I wouldnt be printing them at Walgreens having a 17 year old looking at what I have, and then perhaps calling 911 for suspecting a gun owner.

I wonder if they would print out home made porn pics.

 

It sucks as to what happened, but I doubt they are breaking any laws. I am sure Walgreens will apologize for what happened, but will stand by employees. Then again... I wouldnt be printing them at Walgreens having a 17 year old looking at what I have, and then perhaps calling 911 for suspecting a gun owner.

 

Terrorist Watch List Now.

This is why I use a digital....I should try taking pics of my guns and getting them done at the Walgreen's next to my house. I wonder what would happen

There's more to this story.

This is why I use a digital....I should try taking pics of my guns and getting them done at the Walgreen's next to my house. I wonder what would happen

 

Yup, and use kodak or snapfish. They'll send them to you in the mail.

i think a couple of people should take pictures and try to get them developed at Walgreen if they do and another store does not...what does that indicate from you lawyers on the forum?

There's more to this story.

I agree, but I am still up for a good old fashioned boycott just for S&G

I use my local Target for digital printing mostly because they have the self-service machine that prints the pictures off any digital media. The pictures are coming out right in front of you so the only thing clerk sees is the number of prints you've made and need to pay for. Unfortunately there is nothing on those pictures worth hiding...

spoke to the manager, who told him that he personally found the pictures offensive

 

It's obvious that it is the opinion of the manager and not the chain as a whole. I use them and never had a problem getting prints made.

spoke to the manager, who told him that he personally found the pictures offensive

 

It's obvious that it is the opinion of the manager and not the chain as a whole. I use them and never had a problem getting prints made.

 

Then it is also obvious that Walgreens made a bad decision hiring the bozo and should be so advised. They need to release the manager in question so he could find a position more suitable to his skill level such as in housekeeping or food service.

I also agree that there might be more to this story. Maybe he took the pictures of himself holding the guns in a "gangsta" way. At the department we will receive photos from people who found or have pictures of someone pointing their gun at the camera while wearing a bandanna around their face. :roll:.....I can see a picture like that being offensive.

spoke to the manager, who told him that he personally found the pictures offensive

 

It's obvious that it is the opinion of the manager and not the chain as a whole. I use them and never had a problem getting prints made.

 

Then it is also obvious that Walgreens made a bad decision hiring the bozo and should be so advised. They need to release the manager in question so he could find a position more suitable to his skill level such as in housekeeping or food service.

 

Trust me, having worked retail, and having hired for retail, that was not of the questions they asked the manager.

 

I can guarantee you, almost, that that was the first time someone did that type of printing at that store. 16 year old girl who got first job printing pics there got scared, told manager, and voila. Trust me, Walgreens is not going to lose sleep over this. And having someone print pictures like that in New Jersey, and not expect that is just ludicrous.

 

I remember in drag racing days at Englishtown, there was a common thing.... if you ran a fast car, with tons done to it, you hide your number (how fast you went). There have been numerous cases of people following fast cars home, then stealing them.

 

You dont know who is looking at your pictures when you send them somewhere to get printed. You either take them to a self serve machine, or print them yourself.

As its been said, there might be more to the story, so, I won't speculate on that. However, should we forget the incident a couple years ago with the individuals who were planning on an attack at Ft Dix? The group of guys who made that home video or whatever.

 

I'm not saying that the persons here in question did anything wrong whatsoever; I'm just saying that the Ft Dix incident might still be fresh in some people's minds. Does that give them, Walgreens, a right to discriminate? No way-- but we don't know that without knowing the specific of the details... which we don't.

 

Long story short, who gets hard copy photos anymore? If you want them for insurance purposes, get a digital camera, and put them on separate flash drives or something.

We had this discussion awhile back....and I said that it's none of their business what's on the pictures. It's an invasion of privacy, they should'nt be looking at your private matters.

none of their business what's on the pictures

 

For the most part, yes. however anything of an illegal nature can most likely be forwarded for possible criminal action...such as child pornography. Expectation of privacy in photo prints is not absolute. however, not printing them because of your own personal opinion, don't think so. The corporation isn't going to support that at all. It opens up too many variables.

 

I will print no photos of Chevy's because I like Fords. No photos of the Jets because I back the Giants (actually the Saints but that's another issue).

 

For a store employee to make a comment like that is foolish however no one actually has heard from this "wronged individual". It is an internet story that is being bounced around. In one forum it evolved into "Walgreen's doesn't allow concealed carry". Until I hear the story from the one refused service, I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

(actually the Saints but that's another issue).

That is an unfortunate issue :snooty:

We had this discussion awhile back....and I said that it's none of their business what's on the pictures. It's an invasion of privacy, they should'nt be looking at your private matters.

 

 

I think you give up your right to privacy when you have someone print your photos. If you dont want anyone to see your photos, go to a kiosk and print them yourself, or get a photo printer, not that expensive, for $50 you have great photos.

 

Even the photos that are developed.... someone looks through every photo.

Missing the whole point again...just like before.....You are paying for a service. It does not matter what's on the pictures. It's your own personal property and business. You are just using their service to PRINT...not be objective. If they print someone elses pictures and not yours...

Your rights have been violated.....NUFF SAID!

Not really doc, it's the managers store. He can refuse a sale at any time. You don't like it, shop somewhere else.

that's very true....but not when your rights have been violated. If someone comes in and gets their film, and you are next in line , and you don't , that store faces real heavy legal issues.

At store managers discretion or not." The customer is always right policy" is a corporate dicision, not store managers. Do you know how many times people get what they want from corporate, including a heavy handed ass- chewing for the store manager?

that's very true....but not when your rights have been violated

 

What "rights" would be speaking of? To the best of my knowledge, there is no "right" to purchase hence no legal action.

 

In fact this entire discussion has been based on heresy and no one has actually gotten any information first hand.

that's very true....but not when your rights have been violated

 

What "rights" would be speaking of? To the best of my knowledge, there is no "right" to purchase hence no legal action.

 

In fact this entire discussion has been based on heresy and no one has actually gotten any information first hand.

 

Are you a detective or somethin? Book'em Danno!

I will have to go their with my gun for hire hat and shirt on :twisted:

It doesn't take a scholar to know that to have a violation, you must first have a valid law. No law has been violated. Of course some lawyer would take the case...right after he takes your check for his retainer.

 

I loved dealing with all those street lawyers quoting their rights when they didn't have a clue. Best was their claim that no one read them their Miranda Rights...long before anyone questioned them.

 

A refusal to print isn't a violation of squat. Holding the media might be but that doesn't seem to the the question in this internet lore. To date it's a "I heard this from a friend of a friend who knows someone". Being such a hot topic it's a bit odd that the aggrieved party hasn't spoke up.

A refusal to print isn't a violation of squat.

 

Actually, it is, depending on why they refused to print it. Perhaps not in this case.

 

However, if your African American family had a party, and you went to print pictures, and they refused "because they didn't printing pictures of black people" then you would have a violation of your civil rights. If they didn't want to print a picture of your gay cousin Tony holding hands with another man because they didn't like gay people, then you might also have a case.

 

In this case, though, they are probably just being stupid, you are right.

There was no indication it was due to race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. That in many cases is a Right's violation. This was said to be because of a personal nature. Not a violation.

You guys are right about all the above statements. And nobody from the " violated "

audience has yet to speak up, so it's anybody's guess as to what is really going on.

I'm heading on over to" Wallygreens" with a picture of the St. Valentines Day Massacre,

and see if they could make it into cards. Hey... it's less then a month away.