(Click photo to enlarge.)




  1. Faxon says:

    Fail! Actually, kid, when your ass hangs out, it’s your boxers that are supposed to show, not your tucked in wife beater. And we all know this is the hip hop idiot style from jails, right? And we know the reason the jailhouse creeps had to keep their pants below their waist, right? And the idiots in the ghetto and beyond don’t realize what they are signifying by wearing their pants like this….

  2. noname says:

    Look Ma, no modesty!

  3. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

    I swear on a stack of Beatles albums that I haven’t turned into my father when I say, “this really does look stupid!” What in the hell are they thinking? Sheesh!

  4. Jägermeister says:

    Awesome site, hhopper! 😀 Thanks.

  5. pecker says:

    OMFG, that ‘People of WalMart’ website is an absolute freak-show!

  6. Steve says:

    That’s hot !!!

  7. Gigwave says:

    It’s silly, stupid and a little hot.

  8. Privacy says:

    Bunch of worthless idiots rinning that website. I can’t wait to see their sorry asses get so sued for violating all sorts of privacy issues. When you go shopping inside a store that is not considered “in public” in the legal sense of controlling your image and likeness, there is an expectation of privacy. Just ask any Hollywood lawyer, they would never do what these idiots are doing on this peopleofwalmart website. You can’t go into stores and start taking pictures of anyone you want and publicize them without their express written permission or you can be sued. Even on the street in public you risk lawsuits. There are some rare exceptions as in the case of breaking news where in the public interest the story has to get out as quick as possible and where in certain times like at a fire, as they cnanot possibly get releases for everyone that would appear in the frame as they are covering a building fire, and again, it’s because in the greater public interest of covering the fire as an immediate public safety threat. Most people know you cannot go take a photo of someone in a dressing room and post it online, there is this thing called “right to non-publicity” for those who are not in the public eye. Wal-Mart may need to introduce a “no cameras or cell phones allowed anywhere in the store” policy that is well posted for everyone to see prior to coming in, and use surveillance to catch and prosecute people who get their jollies by posting those images online ILLEGALLY.

  9. mhii says:

    Is he wearing a leotard?

  10. McCullough says:

    #8. HA HA! Now take a deep breath.

  11. McCullough says:

    (Click photo to enlarge.)

    Oh HELL No!

  12. Postman says:

    Well this is all good fun if you don’t live in a Wallmart impact area, where Wallmart has driven every other retailer out of business and you really have no choice but to shop at Wallmart now. It is a little late to go on with the public humiliation now that our economy has contracted to the point that it supports exactly one general merchandise retailer… I mean, I guess my other options are Lowes, Best Buy and Target (the high end of the low end general merchandise retailer???) and that is about it.

    Oh well…

  13. larry garry says:

    Wal-mart has a samsung 32″ 720p on sale for $440 this weekend. Recon. No shots fired.

  14. steve says:

    I think this is a perfect example of why america should have public caneing(spell) why do i have to be exposed to these idiots the only thing lower than there pants is there IQ-they have none.

  15. steve says:

    sorry incorrect grammar i mean “their”

  16. Scott H says:

    #1 My bemusement long since gave way to amusement. A more hapless “style” I can’t imagine.

  17. Silly puddy says:

    Dumb Ass

  18. Special Ed says:

    Uh oh, #8 sounds like a Wal-Mart, electric cart driving fat ass.

  19. Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

    I didn’t know Howard Stern shopped at Wal-Mart?

  20. Faxon says:

    #8 I disagree. I work for a major network as a news photographer. Anybody in a public place has NO expectation of privacy, and CAN be photographed. Now, the issue here is Walmart, and whether they permit photography inside their stores. I doubt that they do. So they can cause a problem for the web site owners. However, the people, being in public, have NO expectation of privacy. Don’t you think WALMART has cameras on them the entire time they are in the store? You are trying to argue for privacy, but there can be none expected in public places. You lose. Any of these people could, of course, legally be photographed on the sidewalk, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is an argument about it when it comes to photos used commercial reproduction, but not for news. A blog is considered news, pal. So it is only Walmart who can complain, not the people in the pictures. Of course, I wouldn’t want to have to explain all of this to any of the freaks in the pictures…I hear this crap all the time as I do my job and get tired of hearing it. Bottom line, in public, fair game.

  21. hhopper says:

    What a bad job to have… WalMart papparazzi!

  22. qb says:

    I can’t get into Walmart. I don’t weigh enough to trip the automatic doors.

  23. Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

    #22 – QB, usually they will coax you into the store with Twinkies then.

  24. Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection says:

    I got busted!!
    http://tinyurl.com/ml37ms

  25. m.c. in l.v. says:

    #8 are you mad because that picture might be you or is it because the site features pictures of your kin folk?

    Didn’t I post a link to this site the other day in response to the old guy slapping the baby in Walmart?

  26. Chris Mac says:

    “Hey! Can someone lance this thing on my back.”

  27. deowll says:

    Sigh, the good thing about this country is that people still have the right to show everyone just what kind of person they really are. That way you know who to avoid at all costs. ?*^) Have great day off and may God or whoever bless and keep you.

  28. Chris Mac says:

    as soon as you can replace “country” with “planet”, you might be on to something.

  29. laxdude says:

    Does one have an ‘expectation of privacy’ when the first thing you see past the ‘greeter’ inside the door is a CRT showing you that you are under surveillance?

    I am not being a smart ass, and I know that you are on private property. So while it is against the ‘rules’ of Walmart to take a photo, I am not sure the person having the photo taken has much of a right to complain.

  30. Privacy says:

    #20 is wrong, his job is to go out and photograph, anyone can photograph anything, that’s not illegal, but what you do with the photos can be a civil rights violation quite easily, especially in this internet era. There is a thing called the right to non-publicity. Even if someone is in a public place, the use of their image if they are not a public figure, is not allowed without that person’s permission, especially in the case of defamation. Even if it’s not defamation it can still be against civil rights laws. Not only is the website messing with the rights of private individuals who do not go to Wall-Mart to publicize themselves, they are messing with trademark law as Wal-Mart is also being defamed. The site is being run by kids in their 20’s that “have their heads up their asses”. What that website is doing is not “reporting news” it’s intent is to defame and mock. It’s a civil rights violation. They can be sued big time. If they are smart they will respond immediately to the cease and desist order Wal-Mart will or have already be sending them. The people in the photos can legally demand to know who sent the photos, legally demand investigations, etc.

    Good luck kiddies.

    Here’s a great letter anyone concerned about this blatant violation of civil rights can send to Wal-Mart lawyers.

    This letter may be copied and distributed freely for personal use, your lawyer’s use if you have found that your image has been used on that website, or other uses as per United States copyright law allows:

    Dear Wal-Mart,

    I have recently had the disturbing experience of accessing a website called “peopleofwalmart.com”. It features photographs of people in your stores who don’t know they have been photographed, and these are published without the person being photographed permission, nor yours, so that viewers on the world wide internet can laugh and defame these people by posting rude comments. Often the faces and identifiable, in particular the overall way these customers look are mocked in these photos.

    The website was created just this last August 2009, by three men – Andrew Kipple, 23, from Indiana; his brother Adam, 25, and their friend Luke Wherry, 23. I would be glad to testify against these men, on behalf of your great store and the individuals they are making a mockery of, as since learning about this as I have decided to not shop at Wal-Mart anymore as my civil right to non-publicity is clearly in jeopardy simply by shopping at the store.

    I am a private person and do not seek publicity. There are many like me who do not want our images plastered on the internet for the world to see, simply because some individuals behind a computer and camera get their jollies out of mocking people. What they are doing is a violation of people’s civil rights to non-publicity if they are private persons, and not public figures. I don’t want to shop at stores where I know I may be publicly humiliated because of how I look not being someone else’s idea of what looks good or doesn’t.

    I am sure you wouldn’t allow any of your customers to be mocked this way if these 3 men were standing in front of your store, making fun of people’s weight, laughing, pointing fingers, and making rude comments to customers as they came in, so in this light, I would love to see Wal-Mart lawyers take these 3 men to court as this is a civil rights violation matter, in the name of many of your good customers who do not need such public worldwide humiliation for simply buying things they need at low prices.

    Once I can get some kind of assurance either by mail or hearing it in the press, that this kind of activity will not happen at your store, I will then be able to shop at Wal-Mart in comfort once again.

    Here’s the ICANN domain dispute information website, I am sure you have a good case to get that domain out of their hands expeditiously as one way of assisting your customers and your brand image from being mocked and defamed. Maybe your lawyers are already aware of this with other improper uses of your trademark as I am sure you have encountered such violations in the past by internet web site creators who have intentions of making Wal-Mart and it’s customers look bad, when so many people find Wal-Mart a great place to shop.

    http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/

    Thank you so very much for considering this matter.

    Sincerely,

    ————-


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5655 access attempts in the last 7 days.