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.
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?
OK see maybe you need to go to school and learn how law works. You can’t have punishments vary based on the merit of the victim.
Here it’s Target, a rich company, somewhere else it’s a private citizen being stolen from, or a small family business, or a charity. The punishment as a deterrent needs to be based on the act alone, and not your personal lack of sympathy for the victim.
Sorry but the real world doesn’t treat law the way you seem to think.
What the fuck are you talking about? Stealing from a corporation and stealing from people is absolutely not the same. Corporations are not people I can’t believe we still have to argue this point.
Also of course the law takes the merit of the victim into account. Half of all homicide victims are black but in 75% of executions for homicide the victim was white. And how many of those do you think were homeless or sex workers? Don’t be ridiculous, the law is not applied equally for victims or for defendants. Assaulting a cop, on duty or not is not treated the same as assaulting a BIPOC sex worker. Every goddamn time there’s a mass shooting or another cop kills another black person why is the first thing they do to try to find some evidence of dirt on the victims regardless of the relevance to the actual case. You are living in a dream world.
Also… What the hell are you coming at me for about this? I never even argued the ACTUAL SENTENCING was unreasonable?!? (I think it’s unjust, but not unreasonable, but I said nothing of that in my comment). I just thought it was batshit insane that you were out for blood for this person and felt they should go away for half a fucking generation for “grand shoplifting”
You are arguing from an emotional perspective, and also bulldozing in a handful of unrelated topics that you clearly need to rant about. I am not saying I necessarily disagree with you on the specifics, but I was commenting purely from a legal reasoning standpoint. That is a very specific and distinctive principle, or I should say, set thereof. I have heard your type of argument a thousand times, and I am not saying you are WRONG, but I am saying you are not speaking in terms of law, but that of emotional reaction.
It’s fine, I don’t want to argue with you… My initial comment was one kind of discussion, and you’re arguing an entirely different kind.
This one is for both Kerri and Drew: learn to fucking read so you understand what your even arguing about. Which really i don’t even care where you both stand because neither one of you read the link that sparked your argument. How the fuck do you get to the conclusion that Target has stolen $185 million from the American people?!?!
Its honestly hilarious to me that both of you are so engaged in this whole shitshow accusation of ridiculous and emotionally arguing.
I feel left out so ima yell the rest of this response to fit in lol RARARARA. NO RARARARARA. WTF ARE TALKING ABOUT. RARARARA YOUR EMOTIONAL. RARARARA NO YOUR EMOTIONAL
NOTHING IN THE VERY SIMPLE, VERY LEAN, VERY INFORMATIVE INFOGRAPHIC DESIGNED TO GIVE POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPANY THEYRE DEALING WITH.
THE ENTIRE LINK THAT THAT IGNITED THIS GRADE A BITCHFIT BETWEEN YOU TWO DOESNT HAVE A SINGLE FIGURE THAT SHOWS ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT THE TWO OF YOU ARE GOING ON ABOUT. THE ENTIRE THING IS A LIST OF FUCKING FINES PAID FOR REGULATORY VIOLATIONS OVER THE ENTIRE DURATION TARGET HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS ACCROSS EVERY LOCATION. DO EITHER OF YOU EVEN KNOW WHERE $187 MILLION STANDS IN COMPARISON TO COMPARABLE COMPETITORS? COMPARED TO A AMOUNT PAID IN FINES PER EMPLOYEE?
Thanks this has been truly fun. 🍻
What meds have you just tossed back with a bourbon chaser? You are the one going off the deep end, fella. I merely stated my opinion about something from a purely legal-reasoning perspective and this person got all in a huff and ranted at me - not comprehending what I had said. And now you’re doubling down on that person’s incredulity and outrage. And the sad part is that evidently neither of you have grasped my one very distinct point, and instead have inferred some huge argument in which I never partook.
Really folks, please stay off the really heavy substances when conversing online. You’re both acting like screaming petulant children. I suspect I’m older than you both combined, no surprise there.
Please just let this die. Nobody is making the effort to read thoroughly and ASK to understand what I had been saying, instead you continue with your incorrect assumptions and attack those assumptions. That’s called a straw man argument, and you both could fill a scarecrow field.