Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Target shoplifting

[shrinkmaster]

You make many assumptions and I dont need to change your view only give readers all their options in an area I am familiar with. Its up to each person to use the info you, myself and others provide and make informed decisions on this issue.

 

[4Justice_MD]

You make many assumptions

"Many assumptions," Huh? I have just merely suggested some very practical,common sense things,good practical measures that would work,and help deter,a lot of "would be thieves."
You on the other hand,ever so,"relentlessly" always popup on here to advocate something that is,useless,unpractical,and down right stupid.
Scaring people into paying a civil demand,that most, surely could not afford to pay to begin with,and furthermore doesn't have too,so misses the mark,like by a million miles.
"Deterrence," through the criminal law,and prosecution,is the key to the thief problem,not lining your pockets through "legal extortion."
The "assumptions," you claim,I'm making are based on my daily experience as a Detective,who works in property crimes,and before being promoted to that,I was an Officer on the beat for about 6 years.I make no "assumptions," whatsoever.

 

[mightymoose]

So the store is entitled to pursue action. You are prepared to carve it in stone for the OP that the store is GUARANTEED to opt out of their entitlement?

Guaranteed? Of course not.
Astronomically unlikely? Yes.
It won't happen.

 

[mightymoose]

Civil demand laws are NOT meant to deter theft. They exist to help recoup the cost of protecting a store from theft. The options are

. Reduce staff
. Cut hours
. Reduce benefits
. Raise prices
and them some. So employees and consumers should pay the cost instead of those who steal?

Those costs are not the responsibility of the individual shoplifter. Even more reason to not pay a demand.

 

[cbg]

Ladies and gentlemen, the missing crystal ball has been found. Please see MM for your scheduled turn to use it.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Civil demand laws are NOT meant to deter theft. They exist to help recoup the cost of protecting a store from theft

If your going to run a business,it's your responsibility to fork out the money,and have the best security system,and policies that you can possibly afford.In doing so,you will "greatly" reduce the percentage of thief's to begin with.
It's either "PAY NOW," or "PAY LATER," but don't use shoplifters,as a means or an excuse,for what you should already know,is just the "cost of doing business."

 

[army judge]

I've said it many times.
Crime will never be eradicated for a myriad of reasons.
Vigilance will help reduce crime.
Some criminals will escape, but eventually all get caught.
When a criminal gets caught, prosecute your trophy, never let your guard down, remain vigilant.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Dang,I must have hit a nerve,I just heard a dog holler,and you know the saying,"a hit dog will holler," my,oh my.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Vigilance will help reduce crime.

Yes,for sure,"vigilance" through,the criminal law,and prosecution,by that,and nothing else.Well,also,"policing" effectively what's yours,cause,law enforcement can't be everywhere at once.

 

[cbg]

So if you get stolen from, it's your fault for not having better security?

Pfft.

 

[mightymoose]

So the store is entitled to pursue action. You are prepared to carve it in stone for the OP that the store is GUARANTEED to opt out of their entitlement?

Also, it is not an entitlement. There is nothing in the civil demand laws that compels anyone to pay a demand- only language that the merchant may demand it.

 

[mightymoose]

So if you get stolen from, it's your fault for not having better security?

Pfft.

Fault? No.
What he is saying is that the responsibility and cost of securing assets belongs to the merchant. It is a cost of doing business.
Merchants who do not report thefts or seek prosecution defeat themselves by circumventing the consequences of the criminal act.

 

[4Justice_MD]

So if you get stolen from, it's your fault for not having better security?

cbg: hi there,and Thank you very much for now,directly responding to me.
I'm in no way saying,it's 100% the cause of thief,but definitely a factor,if the security system a merchant has in place for his/her particular type of business is cheap,and inadequate,as some businesses in cutting costs try to "cut corners" with their security.system,and in so doing,they leave themselves open to being stole from.
In that sense,it is their fault for being so careless,and cheap,I might ad.For instance,if you buy a brand new bicycle,and fail to buy a lock with it,but instead,use a nylon rope to secure it,while you go in a store,is it not your fault,if the bike get's stolen?
I am also saying,a business,cannot,should not use shoplifters,as Shrinkmaster,has suggested,to pay the cost for something such as store security that is just a normal cost of doing business anyway.
Furthermore,as already stated,if Merchants fork out the money to have the best possible security they can afford,they will have gone a long way,in reducing thief to begin with,and does it not make more sense,to prevent an evil,than to deal with it after it's happen,or do we need a "crystal ball," to advise us on that too?

 

[shrinkmaster]

Its NOT paying for it just reducing the impact! Why let the innocent pay the cost? Why let little Mom and Pop shops who cannot afford the cost for DVRs, CCTV etc etc. In addition choosing to prosecute a person for $26.00 theft cost tax payers with bogged down courts etc. Civil Demand was put in place a means for retailers big and small to reduce impact to reduce theft! The other options I already stated. FYI shoplifting alone ( biggest loss group) cost retailers over 15 BILLION DOLLARS!

 

[4Justice_MD]

Merchants who do not report thefts or seek prosecution defeat themselves by circumventing the consequences of the criminal act.

And the "Criminal Justice System," says,"Hallelujah" our Court dockets are so much lighter now,all thanks to our laws on civil demand,we let the Merchants,and thieves deal with the problem outside of court.Self serving,agenda laws,is what I like to call them.
No doubt,it's working for somebody,guess who?

 

[army judge]

Here's my view on shoplifting (in particular), and all crime in general.
If you catch a perpetrator of any crime, try to have the perp prosecuted.
That means you call law enforcement, make an official report, law enforcement will do the rest in conjunction with the prosecutor.

Yes, states have created an NONCRIMINAL option, civil demands.
If you choose to go the civil demand route, you've effectively allowed a criminal to escape justice.

Civil demands were created to unburden the overloaded criminal justice system, especially the criminal courts.

As with most laws legislators create, civil demands have created many unintended consequences.

A merchant who nabs a thief has three options:

1 - catch and release
2 - catch, call the local constabulary, allow justice to run its course
3 - follow the civil demand yellow brick road

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

 

[mightymoose]

Civil Demand was put in place a means for retailers big and small to reduce impact to reduce theft!

That is totally inaccurate, but likely how the retailers like to view it.
It has absolutely everything to do with removing an overload of petty offenses from the courts. The law has no teeth and is ineffective without prosecution.

 

[shrinkmaster]

I never said that Civil demand should replace prosecution!

 

[4Justice_MD]

For me,all where saying on here,circles back around to "Deterrence."how can society best be served in deterring these thieves.I say criminal prosecution,and in that regard,let's get tougher with our laws on shoplifters through increased penalties ,especially for 'repeat offenders,and let's start making "examples out of thieves,so that the message becomes clear,"if you steal,you will pay a high price,not Merchants,but society as a whole.
If Deterrence,is not the goal,where just spinning our wheels,and going no where.

 

[4Justice_MD]

I never said that Civil demand should replace prosecution!

Even if you didn't it has been,and still is your sole focus.
Traditionally,it has always been in civil matters where a Plaintiff seeks compensation in a damage suit,to be able to prove their damages/loss in a court of law.The only issue that should be of any relevance in the context of shoplifting,is weather,the store actually loss the merchandise.If they were caught,and the merchandise retrieved,the,"would be thief," owes you nothing.
Now trust me,I didn't get that from some crystal ball,my good common sense,told me that one.LOL