Good points.
In a** membership** store, they* could* cancel your membership. But you are correct- they can’t detain you.
Bumping the thread a bit:
This is what is happening in San Francisco (not Dallas, which is where the thread OP began,) but it is relevant:
After it was announced that thefts of below $950 would only be a misdemeanor and only lead to a citation and no arrests, shoplifters are bringing bags to stores and brazenly clearing out shelves of items.
Yeah, that’s a possible fake vid from twitter. You know, shopkeepers can stop and arrest shoplifters. Even if the DA wont charge them, they still get their stuff back. So I say Bogus!
And out here in Los Angeles the Sheriffs have announced that they will arrest multiple offenders, even if any one theft is below $950.
But if the DA doesn’t charge them and they are therefore not convicted, how does anyone become a “multiple offender”?
Further, as the worst that could happen to me would be that a store could detain me and get their stuff back, why not take a chance on shoplifting? Worst case, I’m not out anything and maybe I get away with it.
In theory, yes.
But they won’t do it. I know (from personal experience) that it is the corporate policy at Walgreen’s, Speedway/SuperAmerica, and Holiday Stations that employees are NOT to physically stop & hold shoplifters. They aren’t even allowed to follow them outside to write down their license number. Only a security officer can do that, and they aren’t at the store most of the time.
The companies are too afraid of injuries to their employees, and lawsuits from shoplifters. A lawyer could tell a good sob story about their client, and attack the rich & powerful corporation before a jury. And if the DA doesn’t charge them for the theft, that can’t be said in court to explain why the company employee stopped & held the person – so ‘false arrest’ claim upheld in court.
So if Walgreen’s, etc., don’t think what they sell is worth the effort to follow somebody outside to write down a license number, why should anybody else think their stuff is worth the expense of prosecution?
“I followed them outside (or detained them) because I believed they stole something, based on this, this, and that” can be said in court even if the DA decided not to prosecute, because civil and criminal are two different tracks; a successful assertion of shopkeeper’s privilege depends on the specific facts, not on a successful conviction in a legally unrelated case.
Then, if Walgreen’s, Speedway/SuperAmerica, and Holiday Stations, etc cant be arsed to protect their own good, they cant hire security, etc- why should we- as taxpayers, pay the roughly 5000 to arrest and convict a shoplifter, not to mention the hundreds of per day it costs to incarcerate them?
No, that’s not how shopkeepers privilege works. If they recover stolen goods, then they are in the clear.
Because regardless of what these stores believe, we all want thieves to be punished so they don’t steal our shit. I don’t want a society where thieves go unpunished so that next time they are stealing out of my car.
ETA: So if I fail to arrest someone who burglarized my home, then fuck me, why should the taxpayers do it for me?
I certainly won’t say that those stores in your area don’t have that policy - but I know from experience that that’s not true for all chains in all areas. Macy’s* and Target in particular in my area detain shoplifters all the time. Of course it’s probably no coincidence that these are not convenience stores/drugstores and have security on site all the time. I think it’s more likely that Walgreen’s, Speedway/SuperAmerica, and Holiday Stations have that policy because they have determined that the extra cost to staff their stores at a level where someone could detain a shoplifter until the police arrive, complete and sign the paperwork needed for the arrest and testify at court hearings isn’t worth it , rather than fear of lawsuits.
- Macy’s even takes a photo and gives shoplifters written notice that they are banned from entering Macy’s for 3 years.
There has always been limits on crimes. You dont go to jail for parking in a loading zone- you get a ticket. In most states where smoking hemp isnt legal- you dont go to jail, you get a ticket. And so forth.
You say "we all want thieves to be punished " but I dont want $5000 of my taxes spent because some homeless guy stole some Twinkies.
I wish I had more time to find more recent cites, anyway here is one.
Bottom line retail industry will recover the losses and guess who is going to be footing the bill? You the honest, hardworking citizen who doesn’t steal.
Right now artisan fresh baked loaf of bread is 5.00 and up. Are you ready for 8.00 dollars or more for a loaf of your favorite bread?
A mid range priced can a of tuna currently cost 2.28 or more. Do you want to pay 4.00 or more?
Then in turn the stores insurance premiums rise to cover theft, add rising cost of retail rent. Let’s not forget catastrophic weather events from climate change. Then we have rising cost of healthcare.
Are you happy to let insurance companies dictate to retail what they have to charge to you the consumer in order to maintain a profit to keep the doors open?
Somebody will pay and it’s going to be you and I. As a matter of fact Google rising prices of groceries and see how many threads are started by people just like you raising hell about product shrinkage, rising cost, and inferior products…
Imagine if every major city and state decides to implement this law!
So… Dallas has had this rule in place for about a year, is there any evidence that shoplifting has run rampant? You know, besides the twitter vid from (allegedly) San Francisco?
Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth when this was announced, one would think any actual increase in Dallas shoplifting would have been highlighted by now, yes?
I don’t know if you could tell. If the DA won’t prosecute, convictions would tend to go down whether actual shoplifting went up or down or stayed the same. Same for arrests - why would the police bother arresting?
If a tree in the forest shoplifts less than $750 and then falls, does it make any sound?
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a different question than saying if Walgreens won’t have their own security punish shoplifters, then society should not.
How is that any different than saying if I don’t have private security in my home, then I don’t think it is very serious, why should others?
Walgreens pays taxes for police protection just like I do. Why is there some sort of requirement that they also pay for private security?
How we treat shoplifters is certainly up for debate, just like how we should treat burglars, but I don’t see how that question turns out differently based upon whether a certain store or person hires private security.
Also, I’m not seeing this money equivalency thing. If I smack a woman on the ass without her consent, there is no real monetary damage there. Don’t prosecute it?
If you don’t prosecute it, then people will know they can get away with it, and women will be having their asses smacked daily. Just like the shoplifting. You aren’t paying $5k to stop one homeless guy from stealing a twinkie. You are paying to dissuade thousands of others from stealing twinkies and everything else.
It’s amazing where people’s minds go to.
I’m pretty sure shopkeepers could tell.
Unless you think they’re keeping secret the rampant shoplifting in their stores that was directly related to a controversial new policy by their city’s DA.
Is that what you think is happening? That shopkeepers are dutifully silent at the DA of their fair city putting a giant target on their profits?
Please tell me that’s what you think is happening, I haven’t had a good laugh in a while.