Retail giants are blaming their lower profits on theft...

[byke]

I don't want to punish anyone for stealing $1,000. There are alternatives. I do want to lock up violent criminals to keep society safe.

I'd love to see $1000 criminals cleaning up graffiti, blight, and dumped trash for a month or two.

So...that last part is a punishment.

 

[bojangle]

Bonuses are directly tied to profits, if they have an excuse for why profits are lower that isn't themselves, they can justify higher bonuses.

Why would that excuse fly when their policies are part of the problem?

This is just anecdotal, but I saw a major shift where I work in how big box stores conduct their asset protection services. This happened right around the time theft laws softened in California. I'm not sure if the laws had something to do with it, or other liability concerns.

It used to be a regular thing that big box stores had active undercover asset protection employees who would regularly make private person arrests. The case would basically be wrapped up for police when we got there. These were the days where it was relatively easy, in many cases, to charge the shoplifting as a felony, either for having a prior similar conviction, or by being able to articulate the element of burglary. So many arrestees went to jail for felonies.

Now it is very rare that stores will arrest anyone themselves, in my experience. They mostly just call police abandoned monitor, usually allowing the thief to get away. This right there drastically lowers the solvability rate, as we/they usually don't know who the person is. It also shifts costs and liability away from the businesses and onto the police. If a case is to be solved, it will take many more resources from the police. I'm guessing many understaffed departments simply aren't putting in the effort. And if the value isn't over $950, it is just a misdemeanor. This takes away the plea bargaining chip from the DA, surely resulting in fewer convictions. There are really no consequences in place here to deter shoplifting.

Those in charge of these companies surely intentionally changed the nature of what their security people do.

 

[Climber]

Damn dude...I know of a nice place in concord that'll be for sale soon...

He isn't going to leave Oakland, regardless to how bad it gets, it's in his blood by now.

On another note, something has to give, but there is no easy solutions. It almost sounds like Oakland is approaching Escape from New Nork proportions. Do we need to build a wall around Oakland and put all of the other criminals into it?

 

[bojangle]

It's just not a California thing.



https://nypost.com/2022/01/22/why-shoplifting-is-soaring-in-the-us-and-will-get-worse/

The value threshold change in California from $400 to $950, I'm actually fine with. I think it should keep increasing, every so often, due to inflation. $400 today doesn't purchase nearly as much as it did back when $400 became the felony theft threshold.

Bigger issues in California are, IMO

1) The loss of the ability to charge shoplifting as felony burglary regardless of the value. If you can show that the person entered the store with intent to commit theft, that is felony (wobbler) burglary, yet that can't be charged. The vast majority of shoplifting IS burglary, and a good number have evidence to support this. This effectively takes away consequences for shoplifting.

2) The elimination of being able to charge petty theft as a felony for those with a prior conviction. This effectively takes away any serious consequences for shoplifting over and over.

3) The elimination of the possibility of prison time for felony theft cases effectively eliminates any consequences for even felony theft cases.

 

[afm199]

Saw a video of last night of a forklift being stolen from an Oakland hardware store on their fourth visit there in the span of a few hours.

Crazy what's going on down there.

That's my neighborhood, six blocks away. They also steal ATM's, and we have stores boarded up in the area, nobody wants to reopen to more theft.

Damn dude...I know of a nice place in concord that'll be for sale soon...

Thanks Berto! As Climber pointed out, it's in my blood now. Though I am fixing up the house as if I was selling, just that I love the weather here.

 

[afm199]

So...that last part is a punishment.

No. It's corrective action to modify behavior. If bad behavior results in unpleasant consequence, bad behavior lessens.

 

[Climber]

Why would that excuse fly when their policies are part of the problem?

This is just anecdotal, but I saw a major shift where I work in how big box stores conduct their asset protection services. This happened right around the time theft laws softened in California. I'm not sure if the laws had something to do with it, or other liability concerns.

It used to be a regular thing that big box stores had active undercover asset protection employees who would regularly make private person arrests. The case would basically be wrapped up for police when we got there. These were the days where it was relatively easy, in many cases, to charge the shoplifting as a felony, either for having a prior similar conviction, or by being able to articulate the element of burglary. So many arrestees went to jail for felonies.

Now it is very rare that stores will arrest anyone themselves, in my experience. They mostly just call police abandoned monitor, usually allowing the thief to get away. This right there drastically lowers the solvability rate, as we/they usually don't know who the person is. It also shifts costs and liability away from the businesses and onto the police. If a case is to be solved, it will take many more resources from the police. I'm guessing many understaffed departments simply aren't putting in the effort. And if the value isn't over $950, it is just a misdemeanor. This takes away the plea bargaining chip from the DA, surely resulting in fewer convictions. There are really no consequences in place here to deter shoplifting.

Those in charge of these companies surely intentionally changed the nature of what their security people do.

Almost sounds like the change in home security companies when they realized they could increase their profits significantly by eliminating the cost of their own mobile security people, putting the costs onto the local Law Enforcement instead of having their own mobile security people. For awhile their profits went really high, but after a while the Law Enforcement agencies started pushing back and announcing that they wouldn't be responding to those company's calls.

Do you think this was part of a cost cutting decisions on the part of the companies?

 

[byke]

No. It's corrective action to modify behavior. If bad behavior results in unpleasant consequence, bad behavior lessens.

Couldn't you say that fairly legitimately for pretty much anything?

 

[cheez]

No. It's corrective action to modify behavior. If bad behavior results in unpleasant consequence, bad behavior lessens.

definition punishment: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

You're describing the use of punishment as negative reinforcement to elicit change in behavior. That doesn't make it not punishment.

It's a stick, not a carrot.

 

[Blankpage]

The value threshold change in California from $400 to $950, I'm actually fine with. I think it should keep increasing, every so often, due to inflation. $400 today doesn't purchase nearly as much as it did back when $400 became the felony theft threshold.

Bigger issues in California are, IMO

1) The loss of the ability to charge shoplifting as felony burglary regardless of the value. If you can show that the person entered the store with intent to commit theft, that is felony (wobbler) burglary, yet that can't be charged. The vast majority of shoplifting IS burglary, and a good number have evidence to support this. This effectively takes away consequences for shoplifting.

2) The elimination of being able to charge petty theft as a felony for those with a prior conviction. This effectively takes away any serious consequences for shoplifting over and over.

3) The elimination of the possibility of prison time for felony theft cases effectively eliminates any consequences for even felony theft cases.

Yep, with no consequences for theft under $1K a thief can hit three or four places in a day, just keep it under a grand and he’s got himself a sweet profitable gig with no overhead or taxes.
Why wouldn’t any other entrepreneur not want a piece of that.

 

[stangmx13]

You know what I do when I don’t want to get my ass beat? I don’t FAFO. You know what I do when I don’t want to get arrested? I don’t FAFO. You know what I don’t really care about? People who FAFO over and over and over and over and over again then cry about “being a victim of the system!” Seems like your idea of preventing this kind of thing with hugs and rainbows…:ISN’T WORKING! So, unleash the Kraken! As in heads be kraken! Sentences be kraken, and start making examples of people. The proof is in the “the just need to be shown some compassion” mentality. ENOUGH! FUCKEN ENOUGH ALREADY! Your city is turning to shit, some literal and some figuratively, right in front of you.

Racist? GTFO. Enough with assigning blame to a race. Stop. It is part and parcel of what’s got us here today. Quit telling a certain race that because they’re a certain race, they have it harder. You’re putting them at a disadvantage right off the rip. ENOUGH!

Byke, that was almost a meltdown. Have fun with it! arty

That's a funny way of saying you don't understand why your own ideas might be self-defeating.

I think you are mistaken about the bolded part. One thing not working does not prove that another thing will work, even if you think those two things are "opposites". That borders on being a logical fallacy. Society is way too many gray areas to have "opposites" and "proof". With all those gray areas, you would probably even struggle to prove that "hugs and rainbows" are "not working". Theft is likely up in some instance, but does it actually correlate with "hugs and rainbows" in those same instances?...

https://clip.cafe/butch-cassidy-the...-spendin-make-stop-robbin-id-stop-robbin-him/

"If he'd just pay me what he's paying them to stop me robbing him, I'd stop robbing him."

Haven't seen that movie. That's fucking great.

 

[Eldritch]

am aware babe. but rather than your characterization, i prefer to think of it as responding to an editorial comment. whether or not i agree with climber on any specific issue - i still adore him.

no argument with anything you said about bankers - but in my experience, bonuses are de rigueur in the entire corporate world. cash for private entities, and both cash and stock for public ones. and i have no small amount of experience around this, including how these retention incentive plans are designed and work.

Yes, Climber is a good and long standing member of the community and for general purposes seems like a good dude. However, in this case he is supposing a conspiracy that I think is just nonsense, and as is often my wont, am inclined to call it out as such.

In this particular case, his implication is that The Dollar Tree, the specific publicly traded organization in the article, may be directing in a conspiracy fabricating shrinkage statistics in order to protect the value of Executive Bonuses.

As a person who is experienced and familiar with such payment structures you understand that they are not always directly dependent on Net or Gross Profits alone as he stated. Sometimes they are merely calendar dates as retention bonuses, or more commonly in my experience based on other metrics/performance goals, particularly Market Cap value in a public organization like DLTR.

Without even getting into the concern about SEC investigation, you would still have to sell your conspiracy internally to the Board, which would start a lot of hard conversations about Loss Prevention and what is being done that would probably be more expensive/ troubling than the reduced sales or whatever it is that you were trying to cover up.

So you can see how my intention is to punt that non-sense into the realm of the, "9/11 Was an Inside Job" Mob.

I think it is probably safe to move on from the thing though. Everyone seems to have accepted the idea was silly and moved on to the more interesting topic of shrinkage, loss prevention, governance, and what can be done about what appears to be a post COVID Global trend as informed by my article about trends in Singapore.

[youtube]Tap6SEf0Er4[/youtube]
(puke)

Good, too bad the other one got away.

The nightmare of collecting on inventory insurance for a small/ medium business is trouble enough to not want to rebuild and stay.

We've lost the plot in CA. The immediate temporary fix that won't happen is to allow people to protect their possessions and self with lethal force.

You are correct this is the right solution, but as you say, there is currently no political will for it in CA. I do see that conversation starting to slide though. As previously stated by others, Oakland is in a full blown state of crisis and while not at the legendary 1992 levels of violence, the sentiment seems to be changing there away form the, "Defund the Police" nonsense of a couple of years ago to, "we need more Police!"

I expect as it continues to be more and more apparent that it is not the job of police to directly protect people from violent acts, culture may continue to shift towards recognizing the value of self defense.

 

[bojangle]

Home invaders tend to not be all that credible. Since old dude likely didn’t have ultrasound equipment in his living room to verify her claim of being pregnant he did exactly what should be done to home invaders who jump and possibly kill 80 year old folks resting at home.

Her claim of being pregnant isn't really a big factor here, but...see below.

Dude is likely going to lose if a case is brought. There's plenty of precedent that states you cannot go after people and shoot them once the threat is eliminated. They were leaving and he shot the woman in the back. There was likely no credible threat to him at that point. By his own admission, they were running away.

I'm all for people utilizing the Castle Doctrine to defend themselves in their home, but this guy went beyond that and admitted it on record.

Yeah, this. Had the shooting happened any number of other ways, it would have been justified. The home invaders/burglars are scum people. But, the way the old man described shooting the woman as she was running away from him, out of his house, that's not a justified homicide.

Almost sounds like the change in home security companies when they realized they could increase their profits significantly by eliminating the cost of their own mobile security people, putting the costs onto the local Law Enforcement instead of having their own mobile security people. For awhile their profits went really high, but after a while the Law Enforcement agencies started pushing back and announcing that they wouldn't be responding to those company's calls.

Do you think this was part of a cost cutting decisions on the part of the companies?

It's hard to say what it was, exactly. Just from my limited sample of personal experience, it all seemingly started around the same time the laws were weakened in California, between 2011 and 2014. During that time period, I saw big box stores go from policies of hands on arrests to hands off call and report. They still employed asset protection security, but maybe in fewer numbers, not really sure. Also, those asset protection employees aren't very highly paid. I would think they could be a cost saver to a store in the amount of loss they prevent and recover.

I do think liability concerns might have been a factor. If they don't go hands on there should be lower workers comp claims and a lesser likelihood of lawsuits.

With the timing of it, I also suspect that maybe changes in laws influenced changes in company policies. It wasn't just one company. There were several that seemed to change, all around the same time periods of a few years.

 

[Eldritch]

Prison is always solution. Also get rid of poverty and drugs and it will fix good part of it. Those two are biggest source of crime all around the world.

So, it really isn't. Before I started helping low income people find housing for a living, I spent years at a criminal justice reform nonprofit.

I have seen a lot of statistics and studies related to it. I can assure you that leaving behind the subjective trash of moral and ethical reasons, for many reasons that are merely 100% practical, it is not a solution.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Amazing how the Scandinavian prison model does a lot better at rehabilitation which the US system doesn't offer.

 

[byke]

Garbage in, garbage out. Culturally, they just make better people, but our ego's can't handle that.

 

[Climber]

It's hard to say what it was, exactly. Just from my limited sample of personal experience, it all seemingly started around the same time the laws were weakened in California, between 2011 and 2014. During that time period, I saw big box stores go from policies of hands on arrests to hands off call and report. They still employed asset protection security, but maybe in fewer numbers, not really sure. Also, those asset protection employees aren't very highly paid. I would think they could be a cost saver to a store in the amount of loss they prevent and recover.

I do think liability concerns might have been a factor. If they don't go hands on there should be lower workers comp claims and a lesser likelihood of lawsuits.

With the timing of it, I also suspect that maybe changes in laws influenced changes in company policies. It wasn't just one company. There were several that seemed to change, all around the same time periods of a few years.

I think there may be a good possibility that you've hit the core issue. Wasn't it around that time that profiling came under scrutiny? Could it be that stores were coming under pressure to stop trailing people who might be profiled for possibly committing crimes within the store?

 

[Holeshot]

I have a hard time understanding why I would want to spend $100,000 to punish someone for stealing a $1,000. It might feel good, but I am worse off for it.

https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost

Agree the equation doesn't balance well. Plenty of thoughts on how make it balance, but none will be popular with those incarcerated.

Do you think this was part of a cost cutting decisions on the part of the companies?

Litigation/ Liability. Loss prevention changed around the same time theft penalties were loosened. Large firms see the liability of active apprehension as a greater potential cost than the basic theft.

The value threshold change in California from $400 to $950, I'm actually fine with.

Does the law/ reporting delineate between retailing price of product VS cost basis? A $1000 item costs the retailer well under the the sales price. Anywhere from 60-30% or so, factors depending. I can't imagine the retail price is used, given the damages to the retailer are their invested capital.

I expect as it continues to be more and more apparent that it is not the job of police to directly protect people from violent acts, culture may continue to shift towards recognizing the value of self defense.

We've arrived there in my personal opinion given the amount of former "don't need defense" friends who have now gone out and purchased firearms and taken a tougher stance on crime than I myself have. It's odd and yet, interesting to see the inversion of attitudes.

 

[Eldritch]

Amazing how the Scandinavian prison model does a lot better at rehabilitation which the US system doesn't offer.

Ahh, I see you don't keep up...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...son-rehabilitation-center-reform-gavin-newsom

We've arrived there in my personal opinion given the amount of former "don't need defense" friends who have now gone out and purchased firearms and taken a tougher stance on crime than I myself have. It's odd and yet, interesting to see the inversion of attitudes.

Well, I certainly have seen my people in Oakland in particular start to swing more that way in the last few years ever since the riots in 2020, but that sentiment hasn't really seemed to reach our City and State level politics much yet, which is when real change starts to happen.

Chesea Boudin getting axed in SF was actually a huge movement in that direction (not professing an opinion on the matter or trying to politic) and his successor deciding not to charge Michael Anthony in the Banko Brown case seemed like a huge policy shift (again, observing, not professing a positive or negative opinion), but there is a long way to go still I think before California starts to revisit their approach to Castle Doctrine, etc.

Garbage in, garbage out. Culturally, they just make better people, but our ego's can't handle that.

LOL, I have been saying that for years and people just get mad at me, but maybe it is because I have spent over a decade in the trenches actually working on solving the problems so it makes it easier for me to see. Due to multiple socioeconomic system failures as a result of bad policy decisions, the U.S. is simply producing a much shittier class of citizen than it was 100, or even 60 years ago.

 

[afm199]

You're describing the use of punishment as negative reinforcement to elicit change in behavior. That doesn't make it not punishment.

It's a stick, not a carrot.

Cleaning up messes isn't punishment, per se. It's corrective behavior.

If your parents yelled at you when you ran out into the street without looking, were they punishing you?

These kids never got parented properly, and society has to do this now. Nobody likes being parented. Nor should we bribe people to behave properly.