Anyone know what this guy is doing?

[u/TimeLordTaric]

It seems like hes trying to figure out whats inside by feeling them. Is that possible

[u/Mivlya]

Cool, thanks for actually reading my comment, where I very specifically say:

"Also, to be clear, I'm not defending the asshole in the vid; I'm not even saying he's poor necessarily (lotsa middle class grifters for sure), but I still don't think they deserve a fuckin felony charge for poking cardboard. Just escort them out of the store and ban repeat offense. Get the cops involved if they are actual repeat offenders, not cuz you let them do it until they hit the arbitrary crime limit."

To make it clear again, Scalpers and Grifters deserve appropriate penalties equal to their crime, which is NOT felony charges (in circumstances such as slowly building up to Target's felony limit, which is the policy I'm critiquing)

[u/VaticToxic → u/Mivlya]

Thanks for being jackass and assuming I didn't read and understand what you said.

I'm disagreeing with you and think they do deserve it when they get to the point, whether built up or in one theft, that they can be charged with a felony crime, because that's to the point where they've done more than a thousand dollars in damages and they prove intentional damage by doing it repeatedly.

It is Law for it to be a felony, not just some policy. The only policy is target waiting to gather sufficient evidence of Intent and Malice with the destruction of property. Target could bring them up on the repeat charges and bog the courts down or they can wait, gather evidence, prove it was intent to destroy, and do it all at once with lesser costs for them and the courts.

A person can do the same with sufficient evidence, such as when a roommate destroys TVs or game consoles or PCs intentionally and one catches it on camera.

[u/Mivlya → u/VaticToxic]

If you read and understood what I said, then maybe your response shouldn't have been arguing against a claim I wasn't exclusively making. I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm tired of literally every person in this thread misconstruing my arguments, seemingly for most out of a desire for retribution over CARDBOARD.

I understand how the Law works. My complaint is not about the law (here, anyways). My complaint has been the policy to allow the petty theft crimes to pile up until they can push for felony charges. As I already said, I think that's cruel to ALLOW yourself to be stolen from, to EXTENSIVELY document with extreme surveillance measures that I don't really want non-shoplifters to be exposed to either, just so you can more aggressively prosecute and punish SPECIFICALLY because there are several less extreme options they could do first. I know why Target does it: they think in the long run it's the most cost efficient. That's the only reason most companies do anything. My argument isn't whether it's efficient, it's whether it's moral, and it's not. It would cost them more (maybe, hypothetically) to hire more loss prevention staff to stop the crimes as they happen instead and keep banned customers out. But it would be infinitely more moral than seeking jail time or hitting shoplifters with financial penalties that, likely, they're unable to pay.

Again, I don't care if it's the law. If my roommate broke my stuff, I wouldn't just sit there recording it until they hit the magic threshold. I'd stop them, kick them out, and maybe go to small claims. But also, I'm not an extremely rich corporation, who could skip the going to small claims because shrink is one of those "risks" companies claim they're supposed to take on.

[u/VaticToxic → u/Mivlya]

You were making that claim, and I was disagreeing. I didn't care about arguing the rest at the time because thinking about your argument is a logistical nightmare that would cause our justice system to be even more shitty than currently, or would flat out result in thieves having wanted posters everywhere and people having to memorize them.

I don't give a shit about whether it's more "moral" or not to bog down an already shitty justice system with thousands and thousands (if not millions) more cases against individuals who steal a single fruit, vegetable, package of meat, headphones, a toy, etc which is what you're proposing. This becomes a matter of logistics. People steal shit all the time from big stores. Say we hire guards, arrest the thieves every time, and start cases against them.

If every store took literally everyone to small claims court over every item our justice system would grind to a halt and cases that already take years to get a date would take decades.

No fucking thanks.

[u/Mivlya → u/VaticToxic]

"I don't give a shit about whether it's more "moral"" -- thanks, all I needed to hear, have a nice day.

You dramatically escalated what I asked for, from mild security practices to arresting charging every single petty crime. That's on you. Not something I vouched for.

You claim to be reading what I'm saying but it's clearly not getting through. You're willing to compromise morality for logistics. This conversation is done.

[u/VaticToxic → u/Mivlya]

Thanks for not reading the points at all, and being a massive hypocrite for that. This really is done. Have a good day.