The next step will be to sue the store owners when the stores close due to losses.
Perhaps if they stole her books she’d get more interested in social equity and the full use of legal means available to a citizen to stop it.
http://www.amazon.com/Dr.-Ileana-Johnson-Paugh/e/B00I7E6ZGY
“I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Walmart.”
I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for stealing from Mr. Mitchell. (See how that works?)
“We treat an entire race like children” Ann Coulter.
Everett Mitchell - A person who has never had to cover the costs of a business or meet a payroll.
Accordingly, he has absolutely no credibility with me.
“Thou Shalt Not Steal”. Oh wait, we don’t do that in America anymore. The Ten Commandments are now the Ten Suggestions.
I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Walmart. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Target, and all them other places – the big boxes that have insurance – they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior.”
Retail stores DO NOT have insurance against shoplifting. So I reject his premise right off the bat. Even if you are liberal and sympathetic about this, he starts from a false premise.
Walmart does not suffer the cost of shoplifting. We do.
Pilfering and shoplifting is figured into the overall price structure of the goods for sale.
The higher the losses, the higher prices on everything else.
I allow Costco to do this, only because it's part of the membership requirement, and I agreed to it.
With Walmart, unless they state it up front, as policy, before I enter the store, they will not be checking my cart contents against my receipt.
Sounds like someone should publish the address of Everett Mitchell, the Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, as an open invitation to “anyone who wants to” to come and take his stuff in a non-violent way. “And don’t worry, he has insurance to pay for anything taken.”
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose poop.
” “I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Walmart. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Target, and all them other places – the big boxes that have insurance – they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior.”
Where to start?
IF this a college educated man he should demand his money back. Incoherent babblings that do not utilize even the fundamental rules of the English language.
The idea that if a corporation has insurance to cover losses shows at least two things: a) the idiot does not understand shrink and b) theft is theft whether the victim is insured or not.
Apparently the commies are winning with people espousing this type of logic
The thief does not just take your money and property, he steals your freedom.
Let’s say a thief steals your cell phone. The cell phone cost you $200 and you make $20 an hour at your job. You now have to work ten hours to replace the phone that the thief stole.
The thief isn’t working ten hours for a phone.....you are.
That is ten hours that you could have used to buy a vacuum cleaner. But you lost the freedom to choose how to spend your money when the thief stole your cell phone. The thief stole your freedom.
It works the same for stealing from a store. The prices go up and then you have to spend more of your freedom (by working) to receive the same level of product from the store.
The thief has again stolen your freedom.
It is the same with the thief stealing from the government. You must spend more of your freedom (by working) to receive the same level of service from the government. This is why printing so much money is such a destructive idea. This causes inflation which then robs you of your freedom as you must spend more of your freedom (by working) to buy anything.
The victim is the slave of the thief. The victim involuntarily gives up his freedom (by working) to provide for the thief. The victim is the slave to the tyrannical thief.
Yeah, well, they’re rich.
Years ago I had the pleasure of talking to a missionary couple who had just come back from Haiti.
One day, in Haiti, they were in the local open air market when someone stole something and ran!
He did not get more than a few yards when the Ton=Ton Macoutes were on him and beat the man to a pulp.
The missionaries were horrified with what they saw when a local shop keeper came up and told them it was necessary for that man to be beat to a pulp. If they had let him get away with stealing, the shop keepers would be wiped out immediately by being looted.
Somehow this lesson is lost in the USA.
I would not operate a store anyplace that I could not expect legal protection. A close relative owned a store with high-value, highly-pilferable merchandise, and the store went under because of theft. Without the rule of law, or the right to shoot thieves, you cannot operate a business.
The total of all saleable goods was indented. Then the total incoming goods were carefully measured for the year. The head authority of K Mart conceded there would be one and a half percent "shrinkage". At above three percent the head honcho came up from Toronto to Northern Ontario. My job was to bring down the heavy losses of "invisible waste". Every one sidled away from the head honcho.
I ran my rear end off and put in extra hours- no reduction. I was given a table of margins of retail profit. They said ten percent shrinkage was running the store at a loss. They eventually closed the store. My successor had a nervous breakdown also. They could not find the "hole in the wall". Excuse the ramble, but the utter and complete stupidity of the academic boggles the mind. Here in Canada food stores are said to operate at a two or three percent margin of profit. The immense volume, since people must eat gives them a tidy return. This if people pay for what they take out.