I missed the sarcasm tag.
Perhaps if we as a nation hadn't been tolerating “citizens” that think it's their “divine right” to steal, as long as it's from “big pockets”, we might see less of this behavior?
Maybe we “went off the rails” somewhere when we allowed scumbag lawyers and juries to “stick it to the man” in the name of “social justice”?
Walmart used to be more aggressive in pursuing shoplifters until they realized they were depleting all their customers because they would be banned for life after they were prosecuted. They made a poor decision that essentially holds the door open for thieves.
Time will tell if they change their policy and again get serious. In the meantime, we all pay the costs of theft. Just like the good taxpayers we are paying for the theft of politicians, welfare leaches, union thugs, and Democrats in general.
I don't follow your reasoning. By definition a shoplifter is not a customer. I thought the reason that Walmart set a minimum of $25 as the minimum amount that they would allow to be stolen was because it cost them too much to have such cases prosecuted.
Why would I have need for a sarcasm tag? And why was what I posted at all at odds with anything you posted there?