One More Reason to not go to Walmart

[ronburgundy]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

 

[barbos]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

Your theory assumes that walmart customers are capable of grasping your theories
The thing is, If they were they would go to Target

 

[Malintent]

The MORE that Wal-Mart does to CATCH shoplifters the MORE often the police will be called to handle. so what more do you think Wal-Mart should do that would result in LESS police involvement? Set up a Wal-Mart prison in their basement and just kidnap shoplifters for a few weeks?

Why should Wal-Mart be more culpable for instances of shoplifting than any other retailer?

As one police officer stated in the OP article, "We have all our bad guys going to one spot..so [the police's job] is EASIER"

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

Your theory assumes that walmart customers are capable of grasping your theories
The thing is, If they were they would go to Target

No matter what you presume about the intellect of Wallmart shoppers, even the mentally disabled grasp "Men with badges and guns standing at the exit and patroling store makes walking out with someone else's kid or running out after stabbing more difficult." The basic science of human behavior that says you are completely wrong applies just as much to criminals and Wallmart shoppers as anyone.

 

[barbos]

No matter what you presume about the intellect of Wallmart shoppers, even the mentally disabled grasp "Men with badges and guns standing at the exit and patroling store makes walking out with someone else's kid or running out after stabbing more difficult." The basic science of human behavior that says you are completely wrong applies just as much to criminals and Wallmart shoppers as anyone.

Target don't have men with badges and guns at exits. Actually they don't even have greeters

 

[ronburgundy]

The MORE that Wal-Mart does to CATCH shoplifters the MORE often the police will be called to handle. so what more do you think Wal-Mart should do that would result in LESS police involvement? Set up a Wal-Mart prison in their basement and just kidnap shoplifters for a few weeks?

The cops are being called anyway to fill out reports of shoplifters who got away with it. If Wallmart had a larger security presence, there would be far less attempts at shoplifting. Target has far more security and far less shoplifting, and thus far less calls to the police.

Why should Wal-Mart be more culpable for instances of shoplifting than any other retailer?

They shouldn't be more culpable. All retailers should be culpable for failing to provide reasonable security measures. The article is just stating that Wallmart is far more negligent in fulfilling this obligation.

As one police officer stated in the OP article, "We have all our bad guys going to one spot..so [the police's job] is EASIER"

No one said that some cops are not brainless idiots who don't understand human behavior and crime. Wallmart is not merely concentrating crime but increasing its overall frequency by creating such attractive opportunities with little chance of being caught. A large % of crimes, including shoplifting are crimes of opportunity where the decision to commit the crime is heavily driven by the perceived ease of getting away with it. If Wallmart improved security, the incidents would not merely all shift to other stores, because other stores already make it more difficult to get away with.

 

[barbos]

I think author of the article is a brainless idiot here, not the police.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I stopped going to Wallmart when they told me they wouldn't sell me the walls. False advertising.

 

[ronburgundy]

No matter what you presume about the intellect of Wallmart shoppers, even the mentally disabled grasp "Men with badges and guns standing at the exit and patroling store makes walking out with someone else's kid or running out after stabbing more difficult." The basic science of human behavior that says you are completely wrong applies just as much to criminals and Wallmart shoppers as anyone.

Target don't have men with badges and guns at exits. Actually they don't even have greeters

That is just one thing Walmart could do to reduce crimes. Unlike Walmart, Target does have security officers around exits and throughout stores, high tech security systems, and extensive teams that increase the odds of criminals being caught either before they leave or afterwards. It appears to be common knowledge among chronic shoplifters that Walmart is a far easier crime target than Target, as this blog written by and for people who treat shoplifting as a hobby/proffesion point out "Even morning radio shows have openly made fun of shoplifters who attempt to steal from Target rather than Wal-Mart."

Below is a list of the 20 or so different types of job positions listed on Target's corporate page specifically for theft prevention and investigation ranging from stats people who help predict and reduce theft risks, use video to identify typical patterns of behavior in movement of shoplifters, investigators that work with police, and on-the-floor security guards.

----------------------------------

Assets protection & loss prevention jobs at Target

Protect Target team members, our physical assets, stores and corporate facilities with the industry’s best practices while working with a team that strives to be the fastest, smartest and most effective in retail.

collapse all
stores leadership : minimize panel
Lead the team that creates a safe and secure environment for our guests and team members. Prevent issues such as shortage control, theft and fraud.

Example roles:
Assets Protection Director
Manager, Investigations Center Operations
Assets Protection Business Partner
Executive Team Leader, Assets Protection
search jobs and apply now

distribution leadership : minimize panel
Collaborate with Distribution Center leadership and team members on shortage control, safety, and theft and fraud control.

Example role:
Assets Protection Operations Manager
search jobs and apply now

compliance, planning & analysis : minimize panel
Develop processes, identify sourcing opportunities, and measure the awareness and effectiveness of Assets Protection efforts. You’ll help ensure that our company-wide loss prevention strategies are always on the cutting edge.

search jobs and apply now

corporate investigations/forensic services : minimize panel
Evaluate and provide analysis of scientific evidence for Target investigations teams and law enforcement agencies across the country. You’ll also be part of a team that provides video and computer forensic services.

Example roles:
Senior Assets Protection Investigator
Lead Global Investigator
search jobs and apply now

corporate security : minimize panel
Help ensure the protection of Target team members, physical assets and corporate facilities.

Example roles:
Executive Services
Crisis Management, Command Center
Target Security Specialist
search jobs and apply now

financial investigation : minimize panel
Like your detective work by the numbers? Develop processes, analyze data and investigate financial fraud to create a trustworthy transaction environment.


government & community partnerships : minimize panel
Create a unified front against the complex forces that cause theft. You’ll work with law enforcement and local community leaders to create partnerships that maximize safety and profitability for Target.


investigations : minimize panel
Dig in and make a difference as you research, investigate, analyze and resolve organized internal and external retail theft and fraud.

Example roles:
Investigative Specialist
Senior Assets Protection Investigator
Manager, Investigations Center Operation

merchandise protection : minimize panel
Collaborate with outside partners to create common protection standards for high-theft merchandise.


strategy operations : minimize panel
Like the satisfaction of getting the job done? This team identifies technology to meet business needs while developing processes that support safety and reduce theft and fraud.


field & store operations : minimize panel
Support from headquarters is key to the success of Assets Protection initiatives. As a member of this team, you'll develop efficient, effective programs and tools to support store team members.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think author of the article is a brainless idiot here, not the police.

Anyone who thinks that blatant lack of security and odds of being caught do not greatly increase the odds of a crime occurring is a brainless idiot ignorant of the most basic science of human behavior.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

Your theory assumes that walmart customers are capable of grasping your theories
The thing is, If they were they would go to Target

You do know that people who shop at Target have been seen shopping at Walmart and vice versa, right?

 

[ksen]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

I think you meant to say behavioral "science". [emoji14]

Carry on.

 

[Malintent]

The cops are being called anyway to fill out reports of shoplifters who got away with it. If Wallmart had a larger security presence, there would be far less attempts at shoplifting. Target has far more security and far less shoplifting, and thus far less calls to the police.

Why should Wal-Mart be more culpable for instances of shoplifting than any other retailer?

They shouldn't be more culpable. All retailers should be culpable for failing to provide reasonable security measures. The article is just stating that Wallmart is far more negligent in fulfilling this obligation.

As one police officer stated in the OP article, "We have all our bad guys going to one spot..so [the police's job] is EASIER"

No one said that some cops are not brainless idiots who don't understand human behavior and crime. Wallmart is not merely concentrating crime but increasing its overall frequency by creating such attractive opportunities with little chance of being caught. A large % of crimes, including shoplifting are crimes of opportunity where the decision to commit the crime is heavily driven by the perceived ease of getting away with it. If Wallmart improved security, the incidents would not merely all shift to other stores, because other stores already make it more difficult to get away with.

I am trying to understand how 'successful' shoplifters are generating police reports... Perhaps you have a different perception of 'success'? I think most (if not all) shoplifters would put "not detected" at the top of the list of requirements for calling it a success... so the police would certainly not be called in any of those incidents.

As for what is detected by Walmart, it was a very large number... so no one can suggest they are not doing enough to detect and catch shoplifters.

It sounds like the real complaint is that they are not doing enough to stop the desire for people to shoplift. That sounds more like a job for our criminal system, not the retail systems. Walmart has both physical security controls, and monitoring controls.. They are not being completely negligent with their revenue in that respect, and even of they were, that is their prerogative.

If Wal-Mart has found a 'happy medium" (aka, risk crossover value) between cost related to security, and cost related to loss, what more should they do.

If the police are 'overwhelmed' by shoplifters, then maybe they need to prioritize better? Maybe let that shoplifter just sit in the security office for a few more hours while they respond to more important stuff, if need be.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

So, then your theory of crime presumes that the prevalence of authorities there to prevent crime and the potential criminals perception of the odds of getting caught have "nothing to do" with the likelihood of a crime being committed.
Interesting theory, refuted by pretty much every fact from behavioral science.

Your theory assumes that walmart customers are capable of grasping your theories
The thing is, If they were they would go to Target

You do know that people who shop at Target have been seen shopping at Walmart and vice versa, right?

I just wanted to see how long a post I could create by quoting the whole thing.

 

[barbos]

I think author of the article is a brainless idiot here, not the police.

Anyone who thinks that blatant lack of security and odds of being caught do not greatly increase the odds of a crime occurring is a brainless idiot ignorant of the most basic science of human behavior.

Target has the same blatant lack of security

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone who thinks that blatant lack of security and odds of being caught do not greatly increase the odds of a crime occurring is a brainless idiot ignorant of the most basic science of human behavior.

Target has the same blatant lack of security

And yet, they don't have the problem with theft that WalMart does. Gee, I wonder why poor people don't shoplift at Target?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Gee, I wonder why poor people don't shoplift at Target?

Ya, that's a pretty hard slam against them.

"Target - Where the stuff is so crappy that even people with nothing won't take it for free"

 

[ronburgundy]

Anyone who thinks that blatant lack of security and odds of being caught do not greatly increase the odds of a crime occurring is a brainless idiot ignorant of the most basic science of human behavior.

Target has the same blatant lack of security

Not according to either the police or to shoplifters. And I know the Target I go to has 2 security officers at every entrance/exit.

 

[Axulus]

Doesn't Wal-Mart pay taxes that provides these public services? I would think that the taxes paid more than compensate for the use of law enforcement services, no? And if you don't believe so, isn't that on the onus of the one making the claim to demonstrate it? Why do they have an additional obligation for private security? Also, Wal-Mart does have a loss prevention team that works at every store.

 

[Malintent]

Doesn't Wal-Mart pay taxes that provides these public services? I would think that the taxes paid more than compensate for the use of law enforcement services, no? And if you don't believe so, isn't that on the onus of the one making the claim to demonstrate it? Why do they have an additional obligation for private security? Also, Wal-Mart does have a loss prevention team that works at every store.

I completely agree with these points.