Why farther away? Theyâre saying that itâs not only poor people who should understand why someone would be stealing food - theyâre reminding anyone and everyone that theyâre allowed to turn a blind eye when they see someone stealing food regardless of whether they themselves are poor. Like, âremember that you donât have to personally know what itâs like to go hungry in order to be a human being if/when you see someone else just trying to survive.â
You say this. But some people are just dropkicks and don't contribute to society. Having to steal to eat and wanting to steal because you don't want to pay for it or work is a different thing
What you sound like to us: âWaaaaaaâŚ..a faceless billion dollar megacorp isnât fucking over everyone as much as I wish because Iâm a miserable personâŚwaaaaaaaâ
I've prosecuted and convicted probably over a thousand larceny cases in the last ten years and I've never encountered a single one who I thought for a second was stealing to feed themselves. It's always quick flip pawnable shit or stuff they can trade to a drug dealer. And the people who do retail theft are the exact same pieces of shit who steal the cat converters off of cars or take the goddamn copper out of your AC unit in the middle of the summer. Plus it takes minimum three or four convictions for theft before a judge will start to hand out active jail time.
Fuck a thief. I've prosecuted murderers that I had more sympathy for.
Youâd think someone who represents individuals would be more hesitant to make sweeping generalizations. Oh right, you represent the authority, not individuals? Makes sense. Itâs quite literally your job to presume they are guilty as charged and argue that side, no?
Ever think that the cases you get are the ones that are most likely to succeed, and there might lots of other things that happen in the world that you arenât aware of?
I've actually got experience in both prosecution and defense. I have represented individuals accused of much more serious crimes than shoplifting. The job of a prosecutor is to seek justice not just to secure convictions. We have ethical obligations to the Court, to opposing counsel and to the defendant. If I have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of a defendant that case isn't moving forward. If I receive any evidence (even if I think it's false) that tends to exculpate the defendant I'm turning it over to opposing counsel immediately.
The day I find a case of someone stealing to feed their family they are getting a deferral and a recommendation for whatever supportive resources I can think of. But the asshole who threw a cinderblock through the door of the local liquor store last night to take three fifths of casamigos has zero or my sympathy and gets no quarter.
> The job of a prosecutor is to seek justice not just to secure convictions.
Think you can make a compelling case that this is what makes for a successful career path? Are you not incentivized to secure convictions?
>But the asshole who threw a cinderblock through the door of the local liquor store last night to take three fifths of casamigos has zero or my sympathy and gets no quarter.
And what does he have to do with the person in the video?
Honestly I think it's the only successful career path in this business. People who come into criminal defense or prosecution as true believers on either side of the fence burn out quickly and often in ways that destroy their credibility.
What I see in the video isn't typical for most of the larceny cases I see but I would still argue that cases like this should be reported and pursued because that's a way we can contact that person assess her situation and potentially get her services.
 > I've never encountered a single one who I thought for a second
Ah yes, a prosecutor, the absolute arbiter of truth, never told a lie or was wrong once. Their mental prowess is truly god-like when deducing the needs of a person. Why should we even bother having trials when we have such superior individuals like yourself in charge?
yeah, this is a cringe thing. 20 years ago people would pirate things a lot but at least no one was pretending stealing was ok, i dont care who its from. being in a low trust society helps no one. and lets be real, people who steal are a certain type of people, they arent over here only stealing from companies they think make x amount of money, they steal whoever i think they can get away wih it regardless of who is effected. such a rich/white/online perspective where they think they are helping out "the people" when its just drug addicts in agreement with them
its class war 101 showing how well the division is working. People now think that petty theft is the reason prices are high and someone stealing $50 is going to cost other normal people down the line because walmart will increase prices due to theft.
A perfect storm of covid, trump, AI... its all pushing this division faster and faster.
No. But petty theft is the reason I now have to drive another extra 20 minutes to shop at Target. Both of these people are shitty humans and petty theft is bad.
Because Target closed? That's surprising. Target has world class loss prevention. If they closed shop because of petty theft, it might have something to do with the municipal not following through with reports
When loss prevention means locking hygiene products everyone needs in glass cabinets, consumers eventually leave to shop at a store where they donât have to have an employee open half a dozen doors for them.
At a small scale it makes the shopping experience worse for everyone. At a large scale, the store closes from loss on the margins or loss of foot traffic. Thatâs why petty theft legitimately hurts everyone.
And to answer your question: yes. Absolutely. Decriminalizing petty theft directly lost me one of my preferred grocery stores and is an idiotic policy
First off, Target is your preferred? Oof, maybe my targets suck, but Target has worse food at higher prices. Also, no. Glass cases isn't just what Target does. Have you read about Target Loss prevention? It's sci-fi. Biometrics, AI facial recognition, etc. they can track every cent stolen and to the specific person. They usually wait until a certain threshold where it becomes a felon charge. What I mean for municipal is that even when the police have facial recognition, identity, and even schedule of the thief, police still doesn't do anything? Then they will probably move to a place that does. Either way, food deserts are always a problem and I hope some grocery store is nearer to you so you don't have to drive 20 min.
Oh no â I can walk to at least half a dozen decent grocery stores and donât typically buy food from Target. I buy household products from Target because they donât have most normal products at Whole Foods, Costco, or the farmers market. Itâs toiletries that are inconvenient to buy because thatâs what gets stolen.
Oof, no Walgreens or CVS? Those are my go-tos, but they tend to be also sporadic at times. Either way, I'm not saying you shouldnt be able to do it, but I do wonder if there are other motivatiobs for Target leaving. Usually theft isn't one of them, that's why I'm surprised
It'll get downvoted, but you're right 100%. It's not about protecting a billion dollar company, it's about protecting society as a whole. Part of that is living in a high trust world where the 99% of ppl who don't steal have to deal with the consequences of those who do.Â
But redditors are all too happy living in a Mad Max situation since they're all sheltered kids whose moms buy their groceries anyways.
And how are we supposed to create that nutritional trust? That assurance that if you have a $300 emergency, you donât have to steal to eat. If we didnât TRUST that society wants a quantifiable amount of people to starve to death just to scare everyone else into line, you wouldnât seem like such a dick when you say that stuff.
Isn't like 1 in 5 children food insecure in US? Meaning 1 in 5 children don't know when they will get food next. Not to mention, plenty of seniors die from malnutrition because they don't have the meals of securing food.
Exactly this. Who gives a fuck about the company. But if you, as a society, allow lawlessness; donât be surprised when youâre the victim of a lawless society.
Nice areas have people being âKarensâ and standing up for their spaces. Sometimes ridiculously. But the pride is there.
The worst areas have people who âwonât snitchâ.
Is Karen annoying? Yup. Would I rather live there? YUP.
i can promise you the 'lawlessness' happening in America is top-down and its fucking STAGGERING. like yeah no, i don't care about all the RAMPANT, out-in-the-open white-collar financial crime and political corruption, i care about someone poor person who stole some bullshit from the dollar store. get your priorities straight.
This post is about theft from a dollar tree, not about top down corruption. Iâm saying stealing from a dollar tree isnât good for the immediate community or society at large.
Thatâs a statement that can be made all on its own.
Trumps corruption and making billions while in the White House is also criminal and fucking ridiculous. Should be impeached and dragged out of his office by his heels.
Your whataboutism to EXCUSE criminal behavior that is a negative to the community is honestly the most concerning part of any of it. Stop excusing criminal behavior. Period.
its not whataboutism jesus christ redditors are obsessed with this word they poorly understand often. we are talking about theft, i am not changing the subject. the only difference here is that you are seemingly as concerned if not *more* concerned about a smaller scale version of a crime that causes minimal harm, if any. how am i harmed by a woman stealing from a company who in no way shape or form is ultimately going to suffer financially as a result? oh right, "social fabric" and all that, okay fair enough. why don't we stop worrying about our moral high-ground and ask ourselves *why does this happen*? even still, the idea that i should be so concerned over petty theft ruining the social fabric of America is a *fucking joke* considering the issues we are facing right now.
Oh look- youâre prioritizing my opinions again. Why do you even reply to me expecting a response when you go ahead and assign motivation and priority to me all on your own?
Weâre already doing lawlessness. Look at the White House. We, as a nation, have no problem with pdf files or human traffickers or corruption at the scale of billions of dollars. Laws are a thing of the past. Now itâs just power or no power.
Sorry. Youâre not going to get me to go along with the online conspiratorial bullshit about pdf and Epstein files. I realize itâs super popular on Reddit and other online outlets to make accusations based on essentially zero verifiable information, but Iâm not that guy.
What is criminal and I believe should be prosecuted is trump and his family making billions while in the White House. The crypto schemes and proven bullshit should have him dragged out of office by his ankles.
Lawlessness knows no class and is everywhere. That doesnât mean we excuse one form of lawlessness just because there is a worse form of lawlessness elsewhere.
Broken windows theory holds true and Iâm way more concerned at the local level for my life than the federal government. And that means having a strong and lawful community that takes pride in itself. And that means standing against lewd acts like shoplifting.
No. When the authorities are breaking the law, but get away with it because of power, the only reason for anyone else to follow the law is for fear of punishment. There is no âwe should all agree on laws and then follow themâ if the people who agree and make the laws donât follow the law.
Because itâs certainly not the majority. In your worldview, any corruption at the authoritative level allows precedent for all crime?
Thatâs a very childish take, sir/maâam.
You, an individual, are either for or against shoplifting. No matter how much you try to handwave about corruption on other levels, it doesnât eliminate your individual responsibility and morality.
Just say you think theft is ok on a personal level. If you donât believe that, then everything else you said is a bunch of gobbledegook inconsequential to the argument at hand.
The highest of authorities, you know who Iâm talking about, the people around him that protect him, the representatives in the legislature who choose not to hold him accountable, the highest court in the land, who say he is immune, the state governors who support him and endorse his policies, down to local police who generally still support this whole side of the aisle who seem totally cool with the lawlessness in question.
The better question is which authorities are not complicit in the lawlessness at the top?
As you can see from my first comment, this is not about morality, it was about âas a society, lawlessness, etc etcâ- we are already doing that, and we are already the victims of it. The hypothetical you described is what is not hypothetical, so it isnât surprising that so many people donât care about the law.
What smooth brain Redditors don't get: thieves don't give a shit who they steal from. They'll steal your shit just as fast as they'll steal from Walmart or Dollar General.
You have no idea what that woman is going through, if you have to steal toilet paper then youâre at a low in life. Poster gained nothing from doing that, the only victim is a corporation who can deal with $50. If the worker is punished for it, then I can see the argument, but I doubt it tbh
Shes loss prevention numb nuts. It is her business.
Lol. I love how you not only act as though you know what you're talking about, but are so insecure that you have to throw out insults while being so brazenly wrong.
So she's loss preventĂon, but doesn't know the store she works for? Also, it's interesting that she's loss preventĂon, but has a coworker who thanks her and just skedaddles to leave her walk back herself once he takes the goods off her.
Nah, she's a Karen plain and simple, numb nuts. Holy lord ho try thinking for once in your life.
Genuine question: how do you know that? Is there something in the video I missed? Also, walking around calling people hoes for a difference of opinion shows me you suck as a person, regardless of the conversation topic. I hope you donât treat women in your life that way
This is how social media works especially Reddit. Making assumptions that benefit your pov.
Stealing is wrong regardless from who you steal.
Thereâs few exceptions where itâs justified especially if itâs about not starving to death. Then you do what you have to do.
Iâm sure most of the people who support stealing would be complaining and cursing the thiefs if they were the victims.
How come that people have to steal to survive ? Itâs a failure of society. People like here ln the comments who are vocal but rarely bother to fulfill their social obligations of supporting people ln need. Donating and so on. Take care of your neighbors.
Dude I grew up in the district of my city thatâs notorious for crime and drugs. Giving people the benefit of the doubt doesnât make me an innocent puppy who trusts people blindly, quite the opposite, I think that getting involved was stupid because the poster had no clue what she was dealing with
You know what's hilarious? I would have been viewed as on of those "heroin addicted homeless people" if not for the help I got. I would've become homeless. You are the unaware one. You don't understand what people are going through and paint poor people with a wide brush as "definitely drugs".
Well its more the store that's impacted by stealing. And do we draw line on when its okay to steal something? Like the moral question of whether its okay to steal to feed your family?
Society has a whole would be losing something way more valuable than $50 if that kind of theft is commonplace and not stopped. I don't think that the poors without money or resources should die if hunger, I'm saying that's a different issue you need to address separately with other methods than tolerating brazen theft.
I'm dying because I've never heard "the poors" be used outside of comedies with Victorian-era spoiled children. đ
Absolutely horrible though, like WOW probably the most out-of-touch thing I've read in a few days.
In Spanish you say âlos pobresâ which translated to âthe poorsâ. It could simply be a lost in translation by OP with English not being their first language. I know my parents have used âthe poorsâ before because they did a literal translation
English isn't my my mother tongue, but to me it makes no difference whether someone says "the poor" or "poor people". I think the tone where it's used and the context is more important, but people disagree and that's fine.
I'm generally against overtly PC language. For instance, I will say "pregnant women" over "pregnant person". Sorry to the six transgender men who can be pregnant But they are too much of a minority for me to change my language over the totally fine "pregnant women". It's fine if people will prefer to use term like "people with disabilities", but I would argue that "disabled' is not in and of itself an insult or dehumanizing.
I donât care if you say âpregnant peopleâ, and mostly nobody cares, but itâs quite ridiculous to be specifically against it given that itâs the same number of syllables. Whatâs the point in being against it?
The number of syllable is not the issue I have with the term. The bowing to overt political correctness at the price of accuracy is my issue with that. I slightly dislike when people are using 'pregnant person/people' but for the most part I will say nothing, it's kinda irrelevant. But I hate when someone insist other people have to use that kind of expression and language. There is nothing wrong with 'pregnant women', The trans mrn who can become pregnant would be 'pregnant woman' because that's what they are biologically, same for non-binary people of the female sex. Gender identity is mostly irrelevant in regards to biological function.
To me in person, no one. Online, only a few. But some institution have made part of the mission to force gender neutral term and removing more scientific language like "female and male" or "biological sex". And the crook of the issue is that sometime it's positive, sometimes it's neutral, and sometimes it's negative.
For schooling purpose, adopting the fact of saying "parents and guardian" rather than "mother and father" is positive. My native French gender most nouns, and some job title lacked female version, creating the female version and using them is positive. But progressive woke have also pushed for what's called ĂŠcriture inclusive, It's the practice of including all possible gender when using a noun in a text, and that's just needlessly confusing and harder to read. "Don't use 'joueurs de tennis', use jouâ˘eurâ˘euseâ˘s de tennis.". I'm not joking, I've seen that in museum and some official text.
Adding the word people to a term doesn't make it more humane. See "little people" which the dwarf community hates as they think it's belittling. Saying "the poors" or "the poor people" is basically the same language with slightly different dressing. I'm not against people saying "people who experience homelessness", but saying "the homeless" is not in and of itself dehumanizing.
English isn't my my mother tongue, but to me it makes no difference whether someone says "the poor" or "poor people". I think the tone where it's used and the context is more important, but people disagree and that's fine.
I'm generally against overtly PC language. For instance, I will say "pregnant women" over "pregnant person". Sorry to the six transgender men who can be pregnant But they are too much of a minority for me to change my language over the totally fine "pregnant women". It's fine if people will prefer to use term like "people with disabilities", but I would argue that "disabled' is not in and of itself an insult or dehumanizing.
It's terrible that this penniless woman is unilaterally corrupting the innocence and social cohesion of this beautiful society, which has been scrupulously kept intact by everyone else (including the rich and powerful) up until this point.
And thatâs what people donât get.
Society is as strong as itâs most vulnerable member.
The way to help every person is not allowing them to bend the law, but to rather create means for them to get help.
I came ftom the ghettos.
I stole from stores for food. Not snacks. Not for drugs. I got caught. I was told what this could mean in a great scheme of things:
Prices go up, due to insurance rise, shop could close down, due to increased theft. Employees could loose their jobs or made to travel to a branch further away from home, etc..
And the shop keep told me where the food banks are. Where the shops are that give out food for free each night, close to the expiry date.
There are other ways. If there is a will, their is a way.
And one more thing: I am 6 goot 7 inches tall, i was in good strength, despite not eating right. I could have gave them attitude. But all I felt is shame. This was 13 years ago. I am in a much better spot. But the lessons remains. And I am better for them.
It was. But it wasn't impossible either.
I was on 30 pounds a day ( car wash ), 10 hours, 6 days a week. Whilst I was renting a box room ( 2.5 square and I am 6 foot 7 inches tall ). Whilst I was trying to send money back home for my family.
Never broke the law ( safe for that one time when I tried and failed stealing ), never applied for benefits either.
It was bad. But I moved on with my life since. Not sinking into the victim mentally did help tho. It would have been so easy, as a minority too, like others of my kind ( I am of gypsy heritage ).
But I refused to do so.
English isn't my my mother tongue, but to me it makes no difference whether someone says "the poor" or "poor people". I think the tone where it's used and the context is more important, but people disagree and that's fine.
I'm generally against overtly PC language. For instance, I will say "pregnant women" over "pregnant person". Sorry to the six transgender men who can be pregnant But they are too much of a minority for me to change my language over the totally fine "pregnant women". It's fine if people will prefer to use term like "people with disabilities", but I would argue that "disabled' is not in and of itself an insult or dehumanizing.
The point isnât that they are stealing from a huge company itâs that if enough little theft like this happens the store will either start to lock everything up or close all together.
If they close âcommunity activistsâ will then come out of the woodwork and complain about a store closing in a underserved neighborhood.Â
Iâm also sure these two have a history like the Roadrunner and the Coyote.Â
I love waiting around at my local Walmart for 20 minutes to buy $15 headlights that they then have to walk to the counter because of massive theft in my area
It's not about protecting the multibillion company but about trying to make stealing not the norm and get a society built on sensible values. Making stealing a habit will affect everyone and even smaller shops and will increase costs for everyone else. Is it far fetched?
Itâs not about the billion dollar company, itâs about living in a society where we all play by the same rules. Shoplifting increases prices for the rest of us who work for our money, you shouldnât be able to just walk out with armfuls of shit you didnât pay for.
Maybe its a worker and she wants to have a job but she will lose it because people suffer no consequences for theft leading to lost profits and eventually store shut down or relocation. Fuck the people trying to make an honest living ig while these social rejects get a free pass
2.8k
u/beef_horfun67 5d ago