Stores’ treatment of shoplifters tests legal limits

[04SCTLS]

I do say outrageous things. I'm like the thinner/buffer/better looking Micheal Moore


I do believe in punishment fitting the crime. Same goes the chick who got punched by a Seattle cop (The cop is an authority figure vs rent-a-cops)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P5jOoDDbI&feature=related

As I've said before:
Some aspects of police work are "unpleasant"
You provoke a cop at your own peril and should treat it like being in the presence of a dangerous animal or bee's nest.

 

[foxpaws]

They can escalate things, however, that doesn't mean that they do.

If the business escalates things in the in the manner you speak, they would be breaking the law. Incentives matter and the law proves a negative incentive to doing what you are suggesting. Considering the incentive structure involved, your speculation seems without merit.

There is a decent chance that the store owners are breaking the law... it is really 'gray' and I would think that this probably will go down as extortion if taken to court. And the store owners are 'banking' on the fact that the people they are shaking down for payment won't go to the authorities. As the article said they could be illegal immigrants, or they could easily be here legally, but cultural mores are such that 'saving face' means a whole lot. In some respects they are preying on a group of people where they know this type of 'option' is appealing. Why wouldn't they continue to exploit that trait? They might - they might not...

And yes, there are reasons shag there are laws that would protect the shoplifter, store owners could demand anything from cash to sex in payment... or maybe having your kid having to come and work for the guy for 2 weeks without pay....

Crimes should be reported, if nothing else - so if the thief does it again in a different store, where 'vigilantism' isn't prevalent, there is a record that can be followed, and appropriate action taken.

 

[foxpaws]

If the stores tried to keep getting money out of shoplifters after they paid once the whole informal thing would fall apart.
This has developed itself into a known routine.

A type of reverse 'protection'? Certainly 'protection' worked in the past, and a lot of money was to be made.

The reverse could work within certain cultures.

 

[04SCTLS]

They can escalate things, however, that doesn't mean that they do.

If the business escalates things in the in the manner you speak, they would be breaking the law. Incentives matter and the law proves a negative incentive to doing what you are suggesting. Considering the incentive structure involved, your speculation seems without merit.

There is a decent chance that the store owners are breaking the law... it is really 'gray' and I would think that this probably will go down as extortion if taken to court. And the store owners are 'banking' on the fact that the people they are shaking down for payment won't go to the authorities. As the article said they could be illegal immigrants, or they could easily be here legally, but cultural mores are such that 'saving face' means a whole lot. In some respects they are preying on a group of people where they know this type of 'option' is appealing.

And yes, there are reasons shag there are laws that would protect the shoplifter, store owners could demand anything from cash to sex in payment... or maybe having your kid having to come and work for the guy for 2 weeks without pay....

Crimes should be reported, if nothing else - so if the thief does it again in a different store, where 'vigilantism' isn't prevalent, there is a record that can be followed, and appropriate action taken.[/QUOTE]
________________________________________________________________________________________________

The police don't have time for this petty crime and it's very wasteful of public resourses so Darwin has found a way.
It's natural selection and evolution.

 

[shagdrum]

There is a decent chance that the store owners are breaking the law... it is really 'gray' and I would think that this probably will go down as extortion if taken to court.

Are you really this determined to turn the would-be criminal into the victim here? What purpose does that serve?

 

[fossten]

Are you really this determined to turn the would-be criminal into the victim here? What purpose does that serve?

Disclaimer: I can't believe that I'm about to agree with foxpaws here.

It is possible for a criminal to become a victim due to a progression of events. What if the store owner catches a shoplifter and then ties him up with some rope? That's false imprisonment - and now the victim and criminal have changed sides. It is possible. What fox is saying is that extortion might be taking the matter too far. My gut response was that $400 is extortion and robbery. Sure, it's a deterrent, and in a totally free society might even be appropriate. But in our current system it may be overstepping the bounds of law.

I'm not decided on this issue, either - Cal has made a good 'free market' argument as well. I'm torn between the pragmatic "here's the best solution given the situation we already live in" and the idealistic "if I could live in a perfectly anarchistic, free market world" scenarios.

Bottom line: don't steal. And really, if you want to hear another lecture on the matter - tell the government to cut taxes. Then there will be fewer people who feel the need to steal.

 

[Calabrio]

If you don't want to pay the money or have your photo taken, you have the option to have the matter handled by the criminal justice system.

There's no extortion here.
There's no innocent victim here.

While it might seem a little unusual, I have to admit, I like the idea of individuals taking responsibility for their own security. I think we'd all be safer if we didn't expect the government to step in and protect us all the time.

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

It's still wordy, since you asked...

The concise version is "They've got you red handed."

They have you red handed.

 

[fossten]

They have you red handed.

Touche.