Remix.run Logo
j_w 4 hours ago

I'm not sure that I would agree with the claim that the state is unable to stop shoplifters. The case here was Australia, but speaking to the United States:

You can't really do anything about shoplifting until after it happens. It's not a crime until it's been committed, then you can prosecute. The issue is there is a base level cost to do so, and it's going to take a very large amount of shoplifting to balance that. We as a society have basically accepted that certain crimes don't go punished, and it seems like low value shoplifting largely fits that category.

In turn, large companies have decided that they will instead collect data on their own until they have enough to make it a high value issue, with proof. Then the state will prosecute. The issue here is that companies do not get to illegally collect data, they still would have to do so within the bounds of the law. So what are those bounds? We say the Government can surveil us with impunity, but only for terrorism or whatever else gets brought under that umbrella. For "petty" crimes the government would need permission to collect the amount of data that these companies are and then build their case with that.

This isn't to say that shoplifting is okay, just that society doesn't seem to care all that much. Our reaction to companies taking actions like these will also show how much we seem to care about them as well. Spoiler on that last one: we don't seem to care (in the US).

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It definitely depends on the state and store policy.

A Walmart in AZ has sent gigantic bouncers after me to detain me on suspicion of shoplifting a $5 bag of cat litter. In my state they are allowed to kidnap/imprison you until police arrive if they have 'reasonable suspicion' you're in the act of shoplifting, so yeah have fun guessing whether the guy with the walmart badge is actually security or just a rapist.

firefax 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OTOH there are four critera for a legal stop -- they need to see you enter without the merchandise, select it from the shelf, conceal it, then walk past the point of sale AND all merchandise. And you have to have an unobstructed view of the person, because if they discard the item you stop them for, you're in for a world of (legal) hurt.

Also many stores have shot themselves in the foot by placing items for sale outside the front doors... thus a shoplifter could claim they just stuck something in their pocket because they forgot they needed a pumpkin and thus needed a cart, or something to that effect.

If you stop someone and can't document these four points, they can challenge the stop, and you're up for a LOT more losses from the unlawful detainment suit.

So basically, they value upselling people at entrances more than limiting liability, and a savvy shoplifter can sue for a lot of money if the store allows reusable bags, since that removes the ability to charge for "concealment" given that by selling Safeway or whatever branded opaque bags, you have implicitly consented to "concealment" of merchandise.

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Depends on the state.

AZ:

>C. A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting as prescribed in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01805.htm

i.e. all they need is reasonable cause to suspect you are shoplifting. When I was detained no one ever saw me steal anything, I openly grabbed the cat litter, scanned it at the machine, paid for it, grabbed the receipt, then refused to show it to the receipt-checker (not about to slow down for that bullshit since it is now my property) so they just sent some dudes out to grab the cart out of my hands.

goldchainposse 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anyone can dress like rentacop or Walmart security. Pull out the pepper spray, say "back away," and leave.

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not pulling out a weapon unless it is the very last option, but I did not enjoy the prospect of having to mull that decision. In the end I just never shopped at that Walmart again.

Der_Einzige 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We could pass laws that allow and encourage security officers at grocery stores to get physical to stop shoplifting. Arm them too.

That's what Trump/MAGA america wants. They want to see some dude who steal stuff get shot for their crime. They will gleeful cheer it on.

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>We could pass laws that allow and encourage security officers at grocery stores to get physical to stop shoplifting. Arm them too.

That's already the law in a huge part of the country.

> They want to see some dude who steal stuff get shot for their crime.

Places like Qt (gas station chain) in AZ have armed guys that are trained to shoot if lawful (armed robbery, etc).

dmitrygr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you implying that shoplifting should not be punished? Wouldn’t lack of enforcement or punishment for wrongdoing only lead to more wrongdoing? Isn’t the well-accepted viewpoint on this website that if the cost of violating a law is lower than the profit, that is what companies will do. What makes you think people won’t make the same calculation?

The way to solve this problem is to make the cost significantly higher than the benefit. Suggested reading: Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs. Of any person who has ever run any country, he solved this problem in the most effective way.

Der_Einzige 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I've spent a lot of time in Singapore. Not a nation that should be emulated.

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why?

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A couple that some people might not like

1) Execution for drug trafficking without violence

2) A slight majority of the populace eligible for public housing gets it via essentially a regressive tax system where a gigantic slice of the populace (immigrants) fund the housing they can't use, creating a very bizarre government-imposed scenario where housing actually becomes radically cheaper the better positioned you are to be wealthy.

Of course there are arguments for both.

dmitrygr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

1. Sounds good. I bet that lowers the amount of drug-related gang violence like nothing else would.

2. Same as in USA. I fund a lot of housing I cannot use via my taxes.

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

2 is not at all like the USA. USA has an ostensible progressive taxation for public housing -- the people on section 8 / public housing are poorer population than even the legal immigrants that can't get it.

Singapore's is regressive; they tax their massive % of population of ineligible immigrants so the citizens can have it essentially without means testing. It functions largely as a transfer of wealth from less rich to more rich.

ToucanLoucan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This entire well is completely poisoned by the bad-faith whingeing of retailers end to end.

First of all; in times long past, retailers had zero shoplifting incidents, because every order was fulfilled by their employees, who would pick from the stock room and present the customer with a ready-to-take bag of their goods, and a purchase receipt. Shoplifting in this context was basically impossible.

The advent of customers picking out their own goods let to the introduction of customers attempting to leave the store without paying, but it also saved retailers incredible amounts of money, not having to pay to have employees both stock and pull orders.

However, because nothing is ever profitable enough, much further down the line (and, worth noting, when crimes are at historic lows) we get self checkouts, which are basically honor boxes with speakers. And that's fine, I love self checkout and my only complaint with it is now retailers are over-reliant on it, and, again in the name of cost-cutting, have 6 to 10 registers overseen by one worker, who has to sprint between them to sort out when the stupid things can't detect a light item, or have a conniption fit when you don't place a 75" television on them, and of course they have to also make sure all of those registers are ringing up the correct items, which has itself then given rise to bag checkers at the door.

And to be clear, I'm not like, endorsing any particular system here. I don't care how stores want to convey products to me terribly, just make it clear what the fuck I'm supposed to do, and I'll do it. What I am saying is retail theft is largely enabled by retailers who do nothing but chase the bottom line and constantly try and make their stores work with fewer and fewer people who are less and less skilled over time and are then SHOCKED when someone just takes something, because their ludicrously under-staffed stores are incredibly easy to steal from, if you want to.

And I would ALSO point out that throughout this long history, the cost of slippage has been built into the business, because theft is far, far from the only reason a product that is purchased wholesale may not make it all the way to a paying customer. Retail supply chains and especially grocery ones are simply AWASH in waste, and somehow, all the time, these stores make money.

So no, as a customer and taxpayer, I don't particularly give much of a shit about shoplifting.

TulliusCicero 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> However, because nothing is ever profitable enough

This is a wrongheaded way of looking at it, since in a competitive market, those cost savings will eventually be passed onto the consumer.

If you think they just kept those new profits forever -- where did they go? Because grocery is an infamously low-margin business to be in, even now.

reliabilityguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> and, worth noting, when crimes are at historic lows

Depends how you count. If suddenly any theft below $900 is now a misdemeanor (as opposed to, say, 100 previously), then sure, the crime stats will show the crime is low because many retailer simply won’t bother to report it.

I think once this whole idea of crime became a political issue recently, all these stats should be taken with a huge grain of salt