- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 18,357
- Reaction score
- 12,753
- Location
- State of Jefferson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Then why aren't they?
Yes, that's why they stopped hiring security guards.
That doesn't mean that there isn't way too much theft going on.Retail theft rates are grossly exaggerated;
Who is supplying mere anecdotes? I linked a news story with facts.anecdotes are not evidence,
You should research the difference between a bonded and insured security guard and a loss prevention specialist. It's a rare thing for a box store to employ the former who are allowed to apprehend--and hire the latter in droves who are not.
Please read up on the difference between a LPS and an actual security guard. The difference is massive.
?? What are people shoplifting in Starbucks? The only thing not behind counters are mugs and cups. And I've never heard of a single shoplifting incident at Starbucks. (But hey, people probably pocket the occasional mug, sure.)
That may be true. Esp when you consider liability and law suits, which only so much insurance will cover.
OTOH, if it's not stopped, if there are no consequences...the potential is there for it to continue and get worse...and change that cost/benefit ratio.
You were agreeing that it costs more to stop them than it does to just let them steal. That is what I was responding to, and it is not true.
No one said people are shoplifting in Starbucks. If Starbucks locations are closing due to safety concerns, I would take that to mean robberies are happening along with crazy homeless people threatening employees and hanging out outside panhandling and driving away business. If the police or zoning laws aren't providing a solution, then Starbucks might make a business decision to close stores where those types of incidents are occuring.
?? What are people shoplifting in Starbucks? The only thing not behind counters are mugs and cups. And I've never heard of a single shoplifting incident at Starbucks. (But hey, people probably pocket the occasional mug, sure.)
Four suspects arrested after Georgia Lululemon robbery, employees fired after confronting looters
Two employees who were fired for calling police.thepostmillennial.com
This is getting so bad. Here is yet another incident where people just blatantly walk in and leave with tons of expensive stuff. 2 employees were FIRED for following them out to get their license plate and call the cops. Yes, I know it was "store policy" to not interfere with the thieves in any way, but soon we may not have brick and mortar stores to shop at anymore. Insurance companies may stop including theft when writing business insurance policies. If I was in the insurance business I certainly wouldn't. These policies like prop 47 in California that makes it a slap on the wrist if you steal less than $900 worth of goods, and bleeding heart D.A.'s who won't prosecute this shit just emboldens this type of behavior, and probably creates even more criminals, who of course start out small potatoes like this, and then start commiting more serious crimes when they see that they can get away with it.
Pass laws to make it so that a count of intentional intentional theft of any item of any value carries a mandatory minimum one year prison sentence, and each count must be served consecutively (so someone who has shoplifted from four stores in a month must serve no less than four years), and so that strong arm robbery carries a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence.
Proof?
Then the laws need to be changed concerning that. Once perps decide to steal, they set the events in motion that may lead to their injury during an apprehension. They would also be responsible for bystanders getting injured, even if they dont lay a hand on anyone. Of course, the authorities would still be held to standards. There could not be any "brutality" committed on anyone. But, if a shoplifter suffered say, a broken nose or arm because they run and they have to be tackled in order to be apprehended, then that's on them.A big part of the problem is the liability of stopping and detaining (or chasing outside by security or cops) suspects and the harm that can come to them or that can happen to bystanders.
The news story is an anecdote you've used to conclude that there is 'way too much theft' going on, when overall trends show that there is not in fact the explosion of retail theft you claim, while larceny is at some of the lowest levels it's ever been at (and overall crime is exceedingly low too).That doesn't mean that there isn't way too much theft going on.
Who is supplying mere anecdotes? I linked a news story with facts.
Pass laws to make it so that a count of intentional intentional theft of any item of any value carries a mandatory minimum one year prison sentence
Then the laws need to be changed concerning that. Once perps decide to steal, they set the events in motion that may lead to their injury during an apprehension. They would also be responsible for bystanders getting injured, even if they dont lay a hand on anyone. Of course, the authorities would still be held to standards. There could not be any "brutality" committed on anyone. But, if a shoplifter suffered say, a broken nose or arm because they run and they have to be tackled in order to be apprehended, then that's on them.
when overall trends show that there is not in fact the explosion of retail theft you claim
So stealing is a good thing?Curb-side pick up.
And it doesn't have anything to do with the police or the courts.
This is corporate policy.
They lose less money letting the shoplifters go than they do trying to catch them.
And insurance doesn't matter--it's a business loss, tax write-off.
Again, the only thing I have to say to anecdote, until we have actual numbers to support their claims, is 'cool story bro'; especially when retail venues were caught unduly leaning into theft to excuse poor performance and resulting closures. Statistics can certainly be teased and manipulated to an extent, but most of these crime numbers have been calculated effectively in much the same way for decades. Perhaps underreporting also skews things, but I would very much doubt if it masks the problem to the point we're actually looking at historic highs, even locally in the face of some of the lowest crime rates the states and country as a whole have ever known.There is one simple fact that most should know, and that is statistics lie.
I can give a great example in two cities right next to each other in California.
Vallejo is an absolute cesspool. The crime rates are through the roof, and even the statistics show that. However, they are also wrong in that they only show a small percentage of the truth.
Call the cops if you catch a shoplifter, 9 times out of 10 they will not even show up. Call the cops because your car was broken into, 9 times out of 10 they will not even show up. And here is the thing, crime statistics are primarily gathered from police reports. So if they do not even make and file a report 90% of the time, then their crime rates on paper are going to appear to be lower.
But then you can go right next door to Benicia. About three decades ago, both of them were about equal when it came to crime. However, in Benicia they took a firm "no tolerance" stance. There, the cops want you to call them for any little thing, even catching a shoplifter with $10 of soda. They will arrive quickly when called, and will actually arrest them most of the time. Even though they know they will only hold them for a few days before the judge releases them, the shoplifters know that so avoid that city.
On paper, Vallejo and Benicia have almost the same statistics for property crime. But in reality, in Vallejo it is much worse because almost none of the property crime is ever actually reported by the police. And the same thing in many other larger cities. Most in San Francisco also never report property crimes, because it is a waste of time. The police will likely never show up even if you do call them, so you are only going to be wasting hours of your own time waiting for them to arrive and they never will.
Again, the only thing I have to say to anecdote
Because anecdote simply is not evidence of an overall trend.That is all you ever seem to say. No matter what it is, if you do not agree with it you dismiss it as an "anecdote".
And even trying to claim we are having the lowest crime rates ever is almost insanity.
Because anecdote simply is not evidence of an overall trend.
If you want to claim anecdotes are evidence of overall trends that's on you; it is a position that is divorced from reality.No, because you dismiss anything you do not like as anecdotal.
I've also given you 2021 stats.Case in point, you claim crime is lower now. Then to try and prove that you give us a chart of... crimes until 2020 which is before the spike started.
And giving them as a figure per population. Here is the funny thing though, most that tend to use the "per XXX people" are outright lying because that does not address the numbers of crimes. You can have an actual decrease in the "rate" per 100k people, and a huge jump in the actual number of crimes at the same time.
As I have said before, statistics are often a refuge of liars, because they know how they can be used to manipulate others.
Apparently not everywhere, or this thread topic wouldn't exist.Then why aren't they what, stopping shoplifters?
They do.
Do you even know what an anecdote is?The news story is an anecdote you've used to conclude that there is 'way too much theft' going on, when overall trends show that there is not in fact the explosion of retail theft you claim, while larceny is at some of the lowest levels it's ever been at (and overall crime is exceedingly low too).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?