shoplifting is not a crime!

[Farmer Giles]

but theft is, I don't deny it.

while obviously the current law is applicable (so be warned!), all these "special interest protections" like 'retail theft' and 'theft of service' are downright offensive. property is property, all equally deserving of the same protection. what we have here are laws that protect business models not property. If you dont want to deal with the public, don't! there is very little actual theft from traditional markets, where the seller is in direct and continuous control of the property for sale. But the modern model, of self-service supermarkets and department stores, is just too open to call "private property"

you let people in, they do whatever. no one has to follow your rules; just kick offenders out of the store and don't let them back in. that is the appropriate civil response to what is otherwise a civil matter.

theft is universally: "taking without consent". not "failure to walk out the designated aisle" or something. track your own business and absorb your own costs the same as I have to when I deal in business. Maybe if someone doesn't pay my "stated price" on a job I did then they shoplifted my work? no, because Im not a "retailer", with special deals and protection from the government. Not Fair!

Thats why the police nab shoplifters a whole lot more often than private property takers. Someone stole my bike? oh well. But take something from a store that can easily write-off the loss, thats a Big Deal. Protect the Corporation, at at all costs including our most basic Rights.

Meanwhile lets get real and state the Truth- if you are a typical business you cannot have any economic injuries. Everything you have is on credit anyway and you are just a middleman. Who is the real party in interest? Everything is deductible, on your taxes, to your creditors etc. there are no losers in a game thats only on paper.

The reality is we are facing a model of social distribution on a petty merchant basis, something very outdated and an offense to our basic liberties.

So here's my "shoplifting defense":

1. you let me take possession already, so nothing I could ever do can deny you what was already given up.

2. there is no loss, because you aren't the real party in interest. how many shoplifting cases have a 1st hand witness testify to the net economic result of the supposedly illegal transaction? is there anyone with standing to claim an injury to the owner? Just declaring a loss on paper does not equal an actual damage.

[Admin]

I am interested on where you get your stats to support some of your claims?

[WhoWasThat]

I don't see any stats. It's just an opinion piece. Not very well stated, but an opinion none the less.

[Admin]

Ok let me be clearer. I see a lot of bold statements being made. I am curious as to the source of the information (if any). So what is the source of your info?

[Farmer Giles]

im not sure what information was stated. I have stated legal premises based on common knowledge. specifically absent is any statistical claims that I can see, or intended.

my "claims", as it were, are based on reading the statutes for "retail theft". but if there is some specific objection to the post do list it and I will answer.

Maybe you are referring to the ability of most retailers to "write-off" losses. well thats the case everywhere, all losses are deductible always. especially in the context of a middleman, who obviously has nothing to lose. its just math.

keep in mind this position is based on the concept of a "self service" retailer. That excludes a traditional model where everything is behind a bar, or in constant possession, or merely handled for a brief time by a customer. In a self service we have the consent to appropriate everything on offer.

here's a foreign example just to show how off the wall this can get:

in much of europe there are self service gas stations that require payment AFTERWARD. can you believe it? and they act surprised when people drive off. The whole point of that new and improved model was to eliminate the cost and inconvenience of fullservice. But, being europeans...they dont quite grasp the point always so they've made an open self service. and put up a bunch of cameras and warnings and even security guards. ANYTHING but lock the pumps!

all im saying is, if you leave the access open you waived the right to claim theft. create a self regulating model that allows for retail activity without imposing any requirements on the passerby. its got to work on its own without security (LP) playing "secret police". look how a soda machine works- cant get in without paying, its so simple. no arguments or "probable cause", just a functioning mechanism

[Admin]

If no loses are suffered explain how groups like NASP http://www.shopliftingprevention.org. supply actual stats saying retailers "lose" over 15 billion each year to shoplifting alone!? I understand where your trying to go but your thinking is flawed. We here at RTA http://www.retailtheftanswers.org encourage diversion and programs like one offered by NASP. We do not encourage jailing shoplifters as a rule we support awareness and education. Its our hope that some will gain this from this very site and not shoplift.I want to mention that the 15 billion it not only impact. There are higher prices for us all, shorter hours for employees, lay offs, reduced benefits to name a few. To suggest (as I read it) that shoplifting is victimless crime (my words) seems incorrect. I urge you to browse the NASP website http://www.shopliftingprevention.org as you will find much useful information that might change your view

[Farmer Giles]

thats 15 billion in tax deductible benefits

15 billion in "set-off" or "write-down" settlements

send it back to the Federal Reserve. its all accounting. Losses? YES. A "loss" is a fiscal accounting term, we mark "losses" on one side and "gains" on the other. the NET is what counts though, the bottom line economic impact. And the impact of 15 billion in write-down losses is the same as 15 billion in sales. How bout that?

its called socialism and thats not to use a pejorative term. its an economic reality, we are moving very rapidly into a networked economy on a very futuristic basis. which leaves the petty merchant rules of the past more irritating than ever.

a merchant claims a 'loss' lets see if he can prove it economically under oath. not fiscally, but economically, and actual injury to his 'patrimony'. thats different than accounting a deduction

[assetprotection]

Prove what!? Its called "shrink" for a reason!! What are you smoking?

[jacksgal]

Ok that will be enough! Your can have an opinion as others can have a differing one. However we draw the line at personal attacks. Your post is going to be removed anymore post like this an dmight find yourself suspeneded or banned from site. We encourage discussion but it must be done in a civil manner

[StoreDetectiveVet]

Prove what!? Its called "shrink" for a reason!! What are you smoking?

My guess? Crack.