Seriously, how do people feel about say, buying a purse and having the insides checked before it is scanned? Or a big plastic container, or garbage can?
BTW, where in the OP did Stoid say that she tore the guard a new one? She didn’t say that-she just said she hated being searched. I do too.
Before you pay for it, it’s the store’s property. Besides, someone could have put something inside of it unbeknownst to the shopper. After the purchase has been paid for and bagged however, it has been itemized by the cashier and has been bagged usually by a store employee. Once paid for it not only becomes the personal property of the shopper, but has also been checked by at least one store employee.
Nymaz… such a touching story. The store persecuted you because you looked like a thief, but you weren’t a thief. You were a decoy for the real thief… hang on, if you were helping her, that makes you a thief too… so I guess they were right about you? Way to be an ambassador for punks everywhere.
Any chance they were following you because they’d noticed that “tons” of stuff went missing after every visit you made to their stores?
I don’t care what your friend’s situation was. There are alternatives to stealing from people who didn’t have anything to do with how she came to be in the mess she was in. Abusive situation? I believe there are legal recourses, charitable organisations and a lot of other choices before you’re reduced to stealing from innocent bystanders, be they individuals or stores.
Your story highlights the “You owe me because my life sucks” attitude of so many these days. Newsflash - just because you’re a victim doesn’t mean you can or should go around creating other victims. The world owes you nothing. Now go and play nice, and try not to mess things up too much for other people.
Selfishness, envy and greed - three things that cause misery and suffering the world over. If we could eliminate just those three, the world would be a better place.
Other items to note:
IANAaccountant but IIRC a business is allowed to write off a certain amount of “unsaleable inventory” every year on their taxes.
Sometimes purchasing agreements are made allowing a store to return defective and or unsold product. This is what killed Scholastic stock in 1997 when Goosebumps died fast and hard. Store returned mountains of product under return agreements and nobody planned for the volume of returns. So minimal if any loss to the store there.
Stores also sell off returned product to auction houses and discount goods distributors. They buy truckloads of returned items for a song, sort them out and resell them for a profit.
Just a few ways that damage and overstock losses are softened.
Also Sara noted that damage and or loss come out of a bonus fund, so in a nutshell IKEA has already factored that into their operating expenses and those losses come out of the employees potential bonus. No loss to the business either way.
I have no problem with that. None whatsoever.
Here’s the thing: it seems in this thread that the main purpose of the checks is to counter employee theft, but the means is to inconvenience customers (and implicitly assume they’re thieves). I’m pretty sympathetic to Stoid’s view, which is that the store’s ability to prevent employee theft ain’t my problem. I’m especially unsympathetic since the store now has my money, which in a profitable business should by definition be worth more than the value of what I got in return.
Manda Jo, I’m with you in wanting some sort of evidence that the invasiveness actually works any better than careful monitoring of employees. My own (since-reformed) sister was an accomplice to the sort of theft the bag-checkers are allegedly trying to prevent: she accompanied a dirtbag friend of hers to K-Mart, where a cashier conveniently managed to ring up only five items out of the girls’ two shopping carts, which were laden with some $850 in merchandise. Dirtbag and Sis barely got out of the store before they were arrested, along with the cashier. (Yep, $850 - from K-Mart :eek:. I was so embarrassed!) And of course they were arrested because a security camera is positioned above each checkout aisle, and caught the cashier bagging items without scanning them.
That’s a pretty gross case, I admit, but those cameras are no less prominent than the bag-checker. It would seem to me that anyone who’s not deterred by the cameras won’t be deterred by the checker, either.
The comparison to an airport is inapt. When the goal is preventing loss of life, lots of intrustion is OK; when the goal is preventing loss of property, almost no intrusion is OK. An extreme analogy might be to asserting a defense to murder - if you were protecting your own life, you’ll probably walk. If you were protecting someone else’s life, you might or you might not (my dim recollection of the New York Penal Law is that it depends on whom you’re protecting). If you were protecting property, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Of course, inspecting bags isn’t homicide, but to me it lies pretty close to what airports are doing. Keeping planes from blowing up is a good reason to do it. Keeping merchandise - even expensive electronic merchandise - from growing legs isn’t.
Nymaz,
I for one, get what you are saying. If they are going to be so rude as to follow you around because you look differant, I don’t feel sorry for them when they get ripped off by those who don’t
I remember going to the mall, back before Punk was a fashion trend, and we went into a record store(I’m old). One of my friends, who had every intention of buying a motorhead tape he found(I do so hate motorhead), but the store personell stood right in his back pocket the whole time, just daring him to steal something…So he stole the tape, right in front of the guy. I was right beside him the whole time, and I had no idea he took it until we got to my car and he pulled it out of his boot. He had money, he would have paid for it, but he took it as a personal challenge.
Mind you, I don’t condone stealing, and I bitched him out for it, but I couldnt help but find it a little amusing.
And I have known plenty of throw away kids like your friend. I had plenty of them sleep on my couch over the years, and often they don’t have any option but to steal to live (I would share what little I had with them). Too young to get a job, and if the go the official route they get sent back to the abusive houshold(unlike in the TV shows, the cops don’t always believe the kid…It was worse back then). I knew a girl who was the daughter of an assistant DA in a small town in Texas. Her stepfather was sexually abusing her, and he Mother wouldnt believe it. Because her mother was who she was, the cops wouldnt either. My friends kept her hid out until she turned 18(two years).
Is it weasel season already?
Therefore you helped her steal. Your compassion would perhaps be enviable if you were able to extend it beyond yourself and people you know personally. Your effort would perhaps be enviable if you had extended your own work, money, and familial connections rather than preying upon strangers to fund your “charity”. I am sure it was easier just to steal and feel the warm glow of moral superiority.
See punk.
See punk work.
Work is hard.
See punk steal.
Stealing is easy.
See punk mistake sloth for morality.
See punk try to read.
See punk fail to comprehend.
Since you are too simpleminded to understand written words, ask one of your accessories before & after the fact to explain the clause, “I have made plenty of mistakes in my own life.” If one of them shows a particular promise of intellect, ask them whether the implications of that statement agree with feeling "better . . .because [ I] would have not sullied [myself] by being associated with crime."
Repeat this exercise until comprehension dawns. You will recognize the feeling of comprehension by its unfamiliarity.
There are undoubtedly circumstances in which theft might be a moral act. You have not described such circumstances. What you did was illegal. It was also immoral. The fact that you are proud of it, even now, is just sad.
I am sure that most people understood the meaning of your post. Most people, on this board at least, do not suffer from selfishness, illiteracy, moral atrophy, or general punk-ass pissiness. In other words, most Dopers are not Nymaz.
Praise the board!
Congratulations on knowing the “t” word, by the way. Perhaps one day you will master use of the sememe as well as the morpheme. Until then I suppose we must encourage such small steps as you are able to make. Good boy. Have a cookie.
I am sure that you have statistics on criminal populations handy to support this conclusion. Wait–I forgot who I was talking to for a minute. I doubt that you have statistics on criminal populations with which to support this conclusion, which is unfortunate since the anecdotal evidence you have provided contradicts it. The one punked-out person who appears in your story was, in fact, a criminal. One straight-looking person in the story was also a criminal, but since we must supply a general background population of shoppers representing a generic population (you offered no details to allow otherwise) the punk polulation in your anecdote provides a higher incidence of criminals than the “straight” population.
Please go back to your smart accessory before & after and have him explain base populations, percentages, and statistical significance to you. Then, when your head stops hurting, have him steal you a clue. You can be his punk decoy. Then you’ll have a misguided sense of accomplishment and a clue.
Use the clue to choose your next haircut. Anything else would be expecting too much.
Thanks, that did help. I always appreciate it when my first impressions of an asshole are corroborated by further stench.
See punk puke.
Punk mistakes vomit for logic.
See punk struggle with the concept of metaphor.
It’s one less than a metafive.
Poor punk.
If only he had stolen two clues.
Nice haircut, though.
Pink is punk’s color.
So we all pay for it.
Factoring it into operating expenses does not make it go away!!! Especially if it reduces employee bonus’s.
As IzzyR has already explained, the pertinence of the airline analogy is to the question of implication. Stoid did not express outrage because the item check was too much of an incomvenience. She expressed outrage at the implication that she was a thief (not “might be”, was). I simply asked if she felt an analagous implication that she was a hijacker (or terrorist, in the post 9-11 era) every time she went through an airport security check.
If people want to argue that item checks are bad because they are too much of an incomvenience for shoppers, then the airport analogy will not be apt.
I’m afraid I have not been able to find published numbers for per store loss before/after instituting an item check policy. I can find numbers attesting to the magnitude of retail loss and the amount of money spent to prevent it. The implication of those numbers is that the money spent to reduce loss is significantly less than the loss prevented–otherwise it would be a faulty business strategy. As to the anecdote about your sister, an item check would certainly have discovered the same situation (and before they left the store). It is also cheaper (in terms of man hours) to check items as customers leave than to scan surveilance tapes of every cashier throughout the business day (for any store with more cashiers than required item checkers). Most security providers, though, recommend redundant systems for loss prevention. Any single system is open to exploitation and failure.
Truly a lame rationalization. Spiritus is right.
What? You think you’re Robin Hood??? You think you were providing for her??? For teens to not starve/freeze, there are options available to them. I’m sure they are not as pleasant as a good family home, indeed some of those options may be very difficult. But refusing them does not justify stealing, certainly not for a year.
And you didn’t do it to help her. You did it 'cause you thought you were being kewl.
True but the once again IIRC the write off is at wholesale cost to the store, not the retail price. It is still in the stores best interest to sell the product at retail. No manager is going to dazzle anybody with their numbers if a bunch is damaged out.
The store in an effort to make everyone care about product handling/loss control has set up a fund. Every time an employee damages something (like Sara’s example) it comes out of that fund. Some loss is inevitable. The company has chosen to reward the employees for reducing loss and I applaud that move, complaining that loss comes out of a bonus fund is irrelevant because the bonus is for loss reduction. The price of this program has already been factored into the cost of the product, where the money goes is up to the employees.
Spiritus, all I can say is the sky in the world you live in must be pretty. Can I book a holiday in there? After years
of living in what we like to call reality, it might be nice to visit this place you live in. Of course there might be
some conflict with the version of me that obviously lives there. I say obvious, because it’s plain to see that you’ve met him
and had long conversations with him about this event because you keep bringing up “facts” that I’ve never told you, such as:
Your effort would perhaps be enviable if you had extended your own work, money, and familial connections
It’s sad that the Nymaz in your world didn’t do such things. In my world, however, I did have a job and did give her money that I
earned legitimately. However, I was working part time at a minumum wage job, and there wasn’t nearly enough money to support
her completely. As to familial connections, when I did approach them about helping her, their reaction was that she should be
returned to her parents.
See punk./See punk work./Work is hard./See punk steal./Stealing is easy./See punk mistake sloth for morality.
Wow, I’m glad I never met the Nymaz in your world. I don’t think I would have liked him much. Quick question, is it just the
Nymaz in your world who is like that, or all punks?
“I have made plenty of mistakes in my own life.” … ask them whether the implications of that statement agree with feeling
“better . . .because [ I] would have not sullied [myself] by being associated with crime.”
My apologies. When you equated the fact that I had committed a crime (and yes, I know and admit I was committing a crime, “weasel”
comments notwithstanding) to being amoral. And since I consider being called amoral a deep insult, I had assumed you meant it
as one. Tho another assumption, I think it is safe to say those “mistakes” you refer to include illegal acts. So since in your
mind illegal=amoral (your point of view equating them shows in your response to my first post), it now becomes obvious that you
were saying “hey, I’m amoral too, we’re alike” as a way of trying to lessen the otherwise insulting tone of your response. Well,
thanks for the attempt, but no thanks.
I am sure that you have statistics on criminal populations handy to support this conclusion.
I can supply you with statistics on racial profiling and how it doesn’t correlate with actual crimes. But since we seem to be
focusing on the dress/hair angle, no I cannot. To my knowledge no study has been done on this subject. If you can provide any
statistics to contradict me, I welcome them. In the absense of any statistical information either way, I am forced to rely on
anecdotal evidence, i.e. my own experience, which does support my supposition.
the anecdotal evidence you have provided contradicts it. The one punked-out person who appears in your story was, in fact, a criminal.
Oh come now, I’m highly disappointed here. This doesn’t even rise to the minimal argumentative skills you seem to posses. I’m
tempted to post 20 pages of stories of “My punk friends and I visited a store, bought something, and left without stealing”, as
by the logic you’re attempting here, that would be “proof”, but for the sake of the board I won’t.
*quote:
maybe it will help you if I just respond using words you can understand - Fuck you, you fucking poopiehead.
Thanks, that did help. I always appreciate it when my first impressions of an asshole are corroborated by further stench.*
And I appreciate it when my faults are pointed out. The fact that I did sink to your level shows there is some part of my
personality that is petty and rude. The question is should I attempt to get rid of it? On the one hand, it has served well in
the past to accentuate my disdain for someone. On the other hand, if that petty and rude part of me grows to dominate my
entire personality, I might end up becoming more like you, a fate I would certainly not enjoy.
Nice haircut, though./Pink is punk’s color.
Oooh, insinuating homosexuality. Very subtle. I stand shaking enraged at your clever attack. Don’t mistake the yawn, I’m
really deeply offended by it.
Oh, BTW, spooje and cazzle, when you decide to move out of the fantasy world that Spiritus created, you might
want to check out the situation here in the real world. Those resources that don’t immediately try to “return the poor
misguided runaway” to her “innocent and caring families” were few and far between in the 80s, though I hope by the gods that
situation has improved.
Also, spooje, the next time you have a long talk with the Nymaz in this alternate reality, you know the talk where you learn
with such certainty his motivations, do me a favor and just kill the bastard. From your and Spiritus’ description of him,
I’d rather not have someone like that with my name running around.
I was enjoying this little flame fest until this part confused me. Have I missed something along the way? Since when does pink hair insinuate homosexuality? I’m almost certain that quite a few people didn’t get the memo.
Well, due to pink triangles and the color pink being the “girl’s” color, there is some association with pink and gay males.
Since that line came from “out of the blue” (excuse the pun) and since the point of the post was to insult me, I assume that was
the point of the comment. One of the reasons I mocked it was because I don’t associate pink hair with homosexuality.
Many years ago, I was a Loss Prevention employee at Best Buy, so I can sympathize with Monster.
My main responsibility was not to work the door, instead I had to be a sneaky bastard and spy on our own employees. I caught several stealing non-insignificant amounts of inventory; things like 8M sticks of RAM back when they cost several hundred dollars, or a couple dozen Sega Game Gear games stuffed into a backpack, or 30 CDs crammed into a purse, and so on… The statistics I was shown at the time claimed that 70% of loss came from thieving employees.
Sometimes I would have to work the door when we were short handed or during the busy holiday season. I hated it, even though I found a lot of shinkage. Cashiers would ring up only one speaker in a stereo set, for example. That’s $300 right there.
Once, by checking a receipt, I found someone trying to steal a laptop by taking one from a pallet that hadn’t been unloaded and “exchanging” it at Customer Service. If I hadn’t seen that he came in with nothing and checked his receipt, the store would have lost around $4000 on that one incident.
So while it may offend some people, it actually does serve a purpose.
I remember meeting this guy who was living in a homeless shelter once. My girlfriend at the time was training to be a nurse and she was doind a study course called Health and Social Care. Part of her course involved going to a homeless shelter to interview some people there and I tagged along because (and it sounds bad to say this now) I didn’t trust any of 'em.
Anyway, I got talking to this one guy while my girlfriend was off talking to the owner/manager of the shelter. Apparently this guy was living on the streets begging and suchlike when this gang of guys came up to him and told him that he had to beg for them and give them all he earned or there would be consequences. Not realising the consequences this guy told them to go fuck themselves and ignored them.
He hasn’t really been able to work since they ripped his kneecaps out with a screwdriver and slashed his face and back. For about 2 years he had to steal to eat. I don’t begrudge him, or think less of him at all. I’m not saying that Nymaz’z friend is in the sams situation as that guy but the way I see it, desperate times call for depserate measures.
Why did he have to steal to eat? There are many programs for the homeless to help insure that they have food without having to resort to theft.
I’m don’t know Diane. I thought about that but felt uncomfortable asking him. He did mention that he used to do heroin and I guess that might have something to do with it, but then again he can’t have been the only one that did. To be honest I guess I’ll never know but I take him for his word when he said he had to steal to get by.
What you have told me has been quite enough to form an opinion, as your successive attempts at justification simply fill in details without changing the picture. It isn’t a pretty picture, but no doubt you have excuses for that, too.
I commend you for that. Did you give her all of your money, since you had your needs taken care of by your family? Did you imagine that since you had taken some steps to solve her problem without preying upon strangers you were thus absolved of any moral consequences for future actions? Or did you just wrap your conscience in a little flag of justification and enjoy the rush of “getting away with something”.
I am sure you wouldn’t. No doubt that is why you hide him behind layers of protective rationalization and self-justification. It isn’t a good substitute for honest reflection, but hey–go with what you know.
Punks like that are not identified by their piercings or tattoos.
Punks like that are identified by their stilted empathic response, their aversion to accepting ethical responsibility, and their puerile attempts to gain social status.
The Nymaz-punk can also be identified by his tenuous grasp of reality, his striking ignorance of statistical reasoning, and his unique brand of moral synesthesia.
No. You were a criminal. You are immoral. You proclaimed the first fact. I observed the second.
Your pathetic need to find justification for your larceny apparently makes it impossible for you to read my words without supplying your own backstory. Those readers who passed 2[sup]nd[/sup] grade reading and are not blinded by a delusional need to feel good about themselves might want to skip the next bit. Nymaz hasn’t stolen enough clues so I am going to have to use small words.[ul]
[li]See punk want stuff.[/li][li]See punk not have stuff.[/li][li]See punk steal. (clue alert: this is illegal)[/li][li]See punk happy to steal.[/li][li]See punk care only about punk & friends.[/li][li]See punk steal some more. (clue alert: this is illegal)[/li][li]See punk strut proudly.[/li][li]Years pass.[/li][li]More years pass.[/li][li]See punk brag about stealing.[/li][li]See punk still care only about punk & friends. (clue alert: complete lack of moral development more than a decade later)[/li][li]Q.E.D. Nymaz == amoral asshole.[/li]
[li]Final clue: illegal==immoral was not used in the creation of this list.[/li][/ul]
Okay–it’s safe for the mentally competent (ages 8 and up) to start reading again.
Excellent! We have finally found a point on which you understand what I have written.
Really? I can supply statistics on AL batting averages and how they don’t correlate to non-sequitors on the SDMB. (Or maybe they do–what did Ichiro bat this year?)
Yes–you were just pulling it out of your ass. Hey, look, another of my conclusions about you has been confirmed by further developments. Amazing! I should do this at parties.
sigh I did suggest you have your friend tell you about statistics. I know I said to spend your clue on a haircut, but I was hoping that at least a little bit would sink through, perhaps by osmosis. Unless the general shopping population of the store(s) upon which you and your accomplice preyed consisted of more “punks” than “straights” your anecdote contradicts the assertion which you have already admitted you just pulled out of your ass. And, since you made it a point of your proud littel reminiscence that store security paid particular attention to your punk-ass self I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the base population was not “shoppers who look like Nymaz”.
To recap:
[li]Nymaz makes up stuff about criminal propensities.[/li][li]Nymaz tells stories that weaken the assertions he just made up.[/li][li]Nymaz can’t see the truth even when it is pointed out to him.[/li][li]because . . .[/li][li]Nymaz doesn’t know squat about statistical analysis.[/li]
I’m tempted to repeat myself here. In fact, I think I will:
[li]Nymaz doesn’t know squat about statistical analysis.[/li]
Hey–I’m not arguing for or against the assertion that you made up. I am simply noting that you have no support for it and that your own anecdote argues (with all the might that a single anecdote can muster) against it. Don’t blame me for pointing out the obvious. Don’t blame me for your inability to see the same.
Apparently you turn the same delusional lens to your arguments that you use for self-examination.
Obviously. I am waiting to see if there are any parts which are not.
Homosexuality?!?!?! If insist on pulling things out of your ass please do so within the confines of your own arguments. The word I used was pink. Pink.
I happen to like pink. It’s pretty. It forms a nice consonance with punk. It is vivid and appropriate for a punk hairstyle, while simultaneously subverting the violent undertones of the punk=criminal association. Plus it looks great on Gwen Stefani.
Homosexual? You pathetic lack-wit. Why not accuse me of calling you a communist, too.
Nymaz, pay attention–this isn’t about punk accoutrements. It isn’t about partners in orgasm. It isn’t about color wheels or patriotism or legal statutes or Mr Rourke’s corinthian leather. It’s about you. You personally, or at least the person you have chosen to present in this thread. I said Nymaz is an amoral asshole. Nothing you have posted since has done anything but strengthen that conclusion.