[Mark was here]

Until now, they said, Wal-Mart was the exception. “They would arrest somebody for stealing a pair of socks,” said Chief Zofchak in South Strabane Township. “I felt we were spending an inordinate amount of time just dealing with Wal-Mart.”

I would call Chief Zofchak a real jeak. They are not dealing with the store, they are dealing with the thieves. If they don't like dealing with law breakers, why in the hell are they in law enforcement, (except for their pension)?

[muawiyah]

Look, they are, in fact, dealing with the store.

Wal-Mart has the option of operating like one of those banks in the innercity ~ everything behind a counter, plexiglass screen in front of the clerks, etc.

Instead, they lay stuff out for the "convenience of the customers" and in so doing they take a risk.

Question here is whether or not the taxpayers are getting their tax dollars' worth out of having the sheriff tidy up behind Wal-Mart's preferences.

Now if Wal-Mart would directly finance the cost of an extra deputy to take care of "just them" then they can do anything they want.

BTW, you want to buy something from me, at my house, you come to the front door, show me your money, I get it for you. Very old fashioned, but there's no shop-lifting, no sheriff, and no ill-will.