3 ms·

No, it's just no longer a crime - IF you were hungry. You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. The shop

No, it's just no longer a crime - IF you were hungry. You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. The shop can decide to let the thief have the food, or take it away from them, or call the cops. Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. It's calculated into the cost of doing business. Back when I was a teenager working in a supermarket, one store claimed 15% of its revenue was lost to theft every year. (Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well) I doubt they'll just let people ransack their stories, but they may decide to be more lenient in terms of calling the cops when they catch them. Fun anecdote: Working in front of the store, you would sometimes notice people trying to pull scams. The best scam I ever witnessed was over chicken nuggets. There was one guy finishing paying for some food, one cashier, and me bagging the food. Right as this first guy was paying for his food, another came up right behind me and barked in my ear that he couldn't find something in the frozen food aisle. I turned and tried to explain where to find his item. When I turned back around, the last item for the current customer - a box of frozen chicken nuggets - had.... disappeared. Just gone off the counter. The customer was still there, though, and the cashier hadn't seen anything. So we had to get him a new item. It wasn't until he and the distracting guy left that we realized they were working together.

talmand 11y ago
>> Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well) I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  Could have been lower, but they'd just pour that money into opening more store locations. They're currently the largest employee-owned supermarket chain in the USA and they only operate in a couple states.
  - talmand 11y ago
    >> Could have been lower... Yes, that's what I said. I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works? They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest. Yes, it would be nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        > Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works? A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation. In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
      - talmand 11y ago
        >> Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all. >> Do you understand how capitalism works? Yes. >> They already dominate their market at the current prices. That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests. >> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest. I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another. >> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion? I honestly don't understand the point of this comment. >> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would. This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets. So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  Stealing food and destruction of private property are wildly different charges. And hopefully if you were a businessman you'd be smart enough to have insurance....
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing? There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food. I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. And, having known several people who worked in loss prevention, it is well-established that the lion's share of that theft -- both of cash and goods -- is by employees.

talmand 11y ago

>> Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well) I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.

peterwwillis 11y ago
Could have been lower, but they'd just pour that money into opening more store locations. They're currently the largest employee-owned supermarket chain in the USA and they only operate in a couple states.
- talmand 11y ago
  >> Could have been lower... Yes, that's what I said. I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works? They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest. Yes, it would be nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      > Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works? A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation. In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
    - talmand 11y ago
      >> Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all. >> Do you understand how capitalism works? Yes. >> They already dominate their market at the current prices. That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests. >> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest. I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another. >> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion? I honestly don't understand the point of this comment. >> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would. This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets. So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.

peterwwillis 11y ago
Stealing food and destruction of private property are wildly different charges. And hopefully if you were a businessman you'd be smart enough to have insurance....
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing? There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food. I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. And, having known several people who worked in loss prevention, it is well-established that the lion's share of that theft -- both of cash and goods -- is by employees.