Is there a specific example of Target getting a shoplifter felony convicted for a small individual theft that puts them over the felony limit?
Is there a specific example of Target getting a shoplifter felony convicted for a small individual theft that puts them over the felony limit?
Target has a fearsome reputation on the internet regarding how far it goes to stop shoplifting. As is commonly told, it is supposed to track repeat small time shoplifters until they have one last theft that puts them over $1000 (or whatever the magic felony amount is) and only then does Target drop the net and get the shoplifter convicted on a felony for the total amount that has been stolen over weeks or months as one charge.
As the story is told, it smells strange to me and creates many, many followup questions in my mind. I think those questions would be answered by reading through a court case. As famous as Target is, I feel like more dedicated online crime news followers would know of the case and how it played out. Can anyone point me at it?
Edit: The tale told here.
I’m not sure but this is why I stop at $999 at each Target and find a new target.
Gamer
First thousand’s free. Yep, genius policy. (Which is why I doubt they do this).
I have heard this same story except with employers tracking employees who steal money. That one makes a lot more sense to me because they know the identity of the person involved.
Someone gonna tell me that the second I walk into Target their system is like “here comes Mr. Scara Bic, currently at $570.” ??
So, you're asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?
Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?
(edit: shortened url.)
Jeez. In that case it wasn’t someone poor just trying to get by, she was running a business. She sold the merchandise.
Does anyone else feel like 3 years is way too lenient? That kind of greedy shit should send the person away for like a decade.
Lol, America has more legal slaves than it did before the civil war and has higher incarceration rate than anywhere and you want to lock someone up for a decade for non-violent property crime where the only victim is a multibillion dollar corporation that she stole less than 100k from.
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/target Here's records of target having stolen 185 million dollars mostly from the American public, how long do you think anyone was in prison for that? Do you think any penalty there even meaningfully affected any executive or major shareholders life?
I think those would be multiple misdemeanors not one felony.
That is just one of the things that seems very off to me about the claim.
It depends on the state, but they often can be combined to add up to a felony.
Jaywalk enough times and they'll get you for murder
If it’s consecutive incidents of the same transgression it think it’s seen as a spree, like one crime carried out in pieces. It makes sense from a legal reasoning point of view.
I got all of you thieves. I think I might look shady or at least like someone that is going to steal. It's prolly cause of my demeanor, behaviors, attire, and tattoos. I also act pretty weird when I'm by myself, so that's when it usually happens. On a few occasions when I felt like I was being followed, I have tested it by going in directions that another shopper likely wouldn't go in. Yep, I get followed. They send a stock person to the aisle to move shit around. Like the Publix macaroni really needed to be neatly replaced. Sometimes they make it evident that they are watching me at the self checkout scanner like a warning. They stand at the end. Why are they getting paid to stand there just as I showed up? Hmm. Now that I think about it, I have a good idea for a YT channel. I'd wear a discrete body camera every time I go shopping alone and post myself getting following or warned.
If you see me in the store, I got their attention, so you can go at all the good stuff. If there is a Target security person in here, from what I've heard people confess to me, the ones that are stealing are the ones you would least profile: middle-class light-skin women that appear aloof. They're only running half the shit thru the self checkout scanner. If you catch them, "Oops! I must have not been paying attention. Silly me." I'm not stealing shit. I know I have eyes on me everywhere I go.
Not for nuthin’ but I’d subscribe to that channel!
Right‽ I think it's a great idea. I am going to look into it. I need to figure out what kind of camera I can use, but also need to consider the ethics with it. I don't think people would appreciate me posting them on the internet without their consent, especially if it is with negative connotation. The public can go on a manhunt and hurt people's lives when they may have just been having a bad day, following orders, or their behaviors were misinterpreted. If anything, I'd likely blur out their faces to protect their identity.
Thanks for the encouragement 🙂
You could try court records in various states, but Florida has some of the most complete and easily accessible court records online. Try Miami-Dade or Orange county records and start searching.
As infamous as Target's stoploss is, I figured people more plugged in would already know where to look.
In addition to the daily dot arricle, Business Insider also has one:
If you want to read a court case in detail, that will take some work. Maybe someone on Lemmy has found one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Target/comments/1aiualn/how_does_target_keep_track_of_people_stealing/
Someone who claims to be Target LP goes into some interesting detail about their loss prevention, and doesn't bring this up, in a context where it seems likely that they would have, if it were accurate.
I don’t think they want to publicize every aspect, since this would likely give a distasteful kind of vibe. Doesn’t mean they don’t do it. I’m not saying they do, but not including it in an exposé is not exactly conclusive that it’s false. Am I making sense?
It also might make sense that they don't want to give details about exactly when people are successfully prosecuted, so they don't give a new guideline of how to skirt around the rules.
I recall Valve has effectively acted the same way about anti-cheat; they tend not to go into detail about how some new release works, and will silently collect data on who they know to be cheaters for a long time.
Given the number of people this law firm has represented and the fact that for the most part they were not prosecuted for felony theft according to this article, my guess is that it happens sometimes but isn't standard practice.
my guess is that it happens sometimes
I just want to see one case.
I've been trying to Google it and haven't come up with anything. It's been literally article after article of "ex-target" employees making the claim. Might mean it's an old wives tale they spread around to each other. Might be that it actually does happen infrequently (probably to repeat offenders who don't get caught in the act but do get caught when footage is reviewed).
The internet can be extra silly sometimes lol