criddell 3 days ago

How would that work? If they have video from a year ago that looks like a person pocketing some item, what good is that without them showing that the person actually had possession of the item after they left the store?

  • qingcharles 3 days ago

    I've seen a lot of discovery in these criminal cases from Walmart. They do typically wait until the loss reaches a certain point before acting and then they will come with a mountain of photos and videos showing the offender picking up the items all the way to them leaving the store on each visit.

    I remember one I saw where the guy was filling two shopping carts with laptops at each Walmart, each one so high he could barely see over them. Then pushing the two carts out through the tire shop area. Did this at multiple stores. Walmart only called the cops once it was over $60K estimated loss.

    • FireBeyond 3 days ago

      I don't recall ever seeing a Wally World where the laptop boxes are just out for the taking, not in a locked cabinet.

      That being said, Target stores in Washington do something similar, as the threshold for felony theft is $1,000, they'll pull the trigger on LE / LP involvement if you hit that threshold over multiple events, and bring the receipts for the previous.

      I _somewhat_ think that's ripe to be challenged on proving intent in the previous instances, but I also know that serial retail thieves are not likely to be the most sympathetic cause there.

      • qingcharles 3 days ago

        I thought the same thing. I saw photos and videos. I couldn't see any security devices on any of the laptops, but they were piled high on both carts. I saw a spreadsheet Walmart provided of each theft (from a single offender) breaking down how many items were taken and what the total was on each theft. It was like $7000, $13000, $6000 etc etc. The offender got an offer of 6 years DOC, which is served at 50% in Illinois for non-violent. They should get an additional 6 months "good time" on top of that, so maximum 2.5 years. Bearing in mind they were selling the laptops for 50 cents on the dollar from what I understand, they probably took in maybe $30K cash for 2.5 years locked up. (also bear in mind their family will have to support them through this process with a lawyer, about $5K, and probably another $5-10K in commissary and phone calls)

      • criddell 3 days ago

        It seems like a good lawyer should be able to win. Evidence that shows a person picking something up on camera and then leaving the store without paying for anything doesn't feel all that strong.

OptionOfT 3 days ago

Without justifying the theft, isn't it weird that they get rid of cashiers at registers which would scan your items, and thus prevent theft, put computers in place and then rely on software to shift the burden of solving theft to the public?

bevhill 3 days ago

This is another example of the poor being punished harder. A desperate mother who steals repeatedly will reach felony levels and spend years in prison or face deportation, but a rich teen who steals for fun will stay below felony and get away Scott free.

  • CrimsonRain 3 days ago

    Rich kid can also keep stealing and face felony. Don't defend stealing.

    Also if you're stealing as an immigrant, you should be deported without any questions asked.

    • bevhill 3 days ago

      WOW. Look, being in the country without "authorization" isn't even a crime. It's an administrative matter. Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.

      • delichon 3 days ago

        The act of entry without inspection is a misdemeanor crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Repeat offenses can be felonies. It is just a civil violation if they have once entered with permission but lost it, e.g. a visa overstay or violation, adjustment denial, status expiration or revocation. So the Biden era catch-and-release rules created millions of such cases.

        • otterley 3 days ago

          You missed the bigger point to focus on the technical inaccuracy:

          > Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.