6 ms·

> ...allegations by a woman who said a security guard at a Goodwill store in Orange, Calif., threatened her with jail unless she paid $500 for the education pro

> ...allegations by a woman who said a security guard at a Goodwill store in Orange, Calif., threatened her with jail unless she paid $500 for the education program,... The woman, Debra Black, left the store without paying for a $2 purse she had placed on the arm of her wheelchair while she was browsing and forgotten about,... Jesus. I was just reading about this somewhere else, and the deal is basically that suspected shoplifters are locked in a room, given misleading information, and pressured to sign a confession which will be used against them if they later have second thoughts about paying $500 to the "education" company. These companies make payday lenders look good.

tomohawk 9y ago
That sounds like a crime. Maybe prosecute that instead of get rid of a program that appears to have some demonstrable up sides.
- lurr 9y ago
  Does this program have upsides? Saves time and money at the cost of trampling on people's rights is not an upside. Are these people being given lawyers? Are they being told what their rights are? Do they have an accurate understanding of the punishment they face if they tell walmart no?
- shkkmo 9y ago
  It's all a crime (at least in California). It's called 'extortion'. The program certainly has upsides for the for-profit company running the program and for the for-profit store receiving 'restitution' from participants. However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. If this program were truly about helping these people, it would be run by a non-profit and funded by the stores and/or the police departments rather than by extorting people.
  - loeg 9y ago
    > However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500. And whether you are convicted or not, your mugshot may be public forever, with long-lasting potential economic impacts. If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500 Do you have any evidence or data? Or is this just hand waving? The article doesn't even try to show that it is beneficial to participants. I've been through the legal system exactly once. I pled guilty and got time served. It cost me exactly $0 and about 24hrs of my life. The article itself says that first-time offenders rarely get prosecuted. > If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside. No, this just shows that the extortion is effective, not that complying with the extortion is in your best interests.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside." I don't think it does. We'd have to know what information they are given, and what kind of pressure they are put under to decide if it's coercion or not.
    - grkvlt 9y ago
      Where are these people (apparently shoplifters who are too poor to purchase goods, and are therefore stealing them) getting the money to pay for these 'education' courses, in the first place?
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    I'll go as far to agree that it is California extortion, whatever that is. How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? The up side in this case is that the shoplifters (who are now somehow the victims in your narrative) are allowed an alternative course of action that does not involve a criminal record or jail time. Any system, to be viable, needs a viable economic model. In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. There's nothing inherently morally superior about a non-profit. In fact, many non-profits are downright despicable. That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you.
    - lurr 9y ago
      That's absolutely extortion too and the way that prosecutors rob people of their day in court by saying plea bargain or excessive punishment is similarly disgusting. You might have guessed I have a pretty low view of the US criminal justice system.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? If a prosecutor demands money in exchange for not prosecuting you, that is extortion. Prosecutors having discretion does not make it extortion unless something is demanded in return for not prosecuting. (One might make a case that the current practice of soliciting plea deals are a form of extortion, but that is a whole other discussion.) > In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. Funding the system as they do creates incentives for abuse. While non-profits can be abused like for profits, there are more legal protections to limit their behavior and ability to generate profit from shady behavior. > That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you. I don't get your point. Yes, only the government is allowed to extort you and coerce your actions with force and there are strong legal limits to the ways in which we allow government to do that.
bsder 9y ago
> the deal is basically that suspected shoplifters are locked in a room I find this difficult to believe in the case of places like WalMart and Target with phalanxes of lawyers. Goodwill ... I could believe might not be quite so competent. Target, for example, won't even let their security people so much as touch someone who is literally walking out of the store with something like a stolen TV. The possibility of getting countersued is so high that it isn't worth it. The simply follow them with a camera to their car and record everything and later turn it over to the authorities if they decide to pursue. I imagine that with facial recognition, what's going to happen is these people will get blacklisted from the stores and flagged if they try to reappear.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - lurr 9y ago
    Sounds like the justice system working actually. I hope if you ever get caught up in something that you have a bleeding heart lawyer who works to ensure your rights are protected and you get a fair chance.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dahdum 9y ago
Sounds like the programs need to be tweaked a bit for state laws, but the giving the option of avoiding police action through education/restitution is a greater good in my opinion. Perhaps a court approved statement could be read to them which outlines the choice they have between the program or police report.
- username223 9y ago
  I don't see how you get from these programs to something positive. So a woman in a wheelchair is shaken down by a low-paid security guard for $500 for a $2 purse she may or may not have tried to steal. The logical next step is for the security guard to shake her down for $50 to make the whole thing go away. Either way it's extortion, and it's the inevitable result of for-profit law enforcement (see civil asset forfeiture).
  - dahdum 9y ago
    Compared to the alternative? Yes, I think it's better she goes through the program then gets booked on misdemeanor shoplifting. I also think it's better that a dumb kid gets the program instead of entering the judicial system. And if they don't take the program, they still have the exact same opportunity to plead their case to the court. The details still need to be hashed out, but this is meant as a compassionate program.
    - username223 9y ago
      > this is meant as a compassionate program. No, this is meant as a business making money off accused petty criminals. Basic human decency suggests that you take the purse back to the shelf, let the lady in the wheelchair roll out the door, and make a note to watch her if she comes back. If she's shopping at a Goodwill, she's hardly wealthy, and if she's stealing $2 purses, taking $500 from her won't solve any problems.
oceanghost 9y ago
I used to live two blocks from that Goodwill and have been tehre. Orange is a really interesting sociological expirament. I lived in a 700k cottage in an insanely desirable historical district with a beautiful private university, but had gangbangers and barios in any direction (santa ana, tustin, anaheim, placentia). The homeless encampments down the street have made national news. I do not know how this level of inequality is sustainable. It's really easy to see how Goodwill could take advantadge of that situation. They're taking donations froim wealthy folks / college kids and reselling them to thje poor folk, and extorting the odd fellow it seems like.

tomohawk 9y ago

That sounds like a crime. Maybe prosecute that instead of get rid of a program that appears to have some demonstrable up sides.

lurr 9y ago
Does this program have upsides? Saves time and money at the cost of trampling on people's rights is not an upside. Are these people being given lawyers? Are they being told what their rights are? Do they have an accurate understanding of the punishment they face if they tell walmart no?
shkkmo 9y ago
It's all a crime (at least in California). It's called 'extortion'. The program certainly has upsides for the for-profit company running the program and for the for-profit store receiving 'restitution' from participants. However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. If this program were truly about helping these people, it would be run by a non-profit and funded by the stores and/or the police departments rather than by extorting people.
- loeg 9y ago
  > However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500. And whether you are convicted or not, your mugshot may be public forever, with long-lasting potential economic impacts. If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500 Do you have any evidence or data? Or is this just hand waving? The article doesn't even try to show that it is beneficial to participants. I've been through the legal system exactly once. I pled guilty and got time served. It cost me exactly $0 and about 24hrs of my life. The article itself says that first-time offenders rarely get prosecuted. > If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside. No, this just shows that the extortion is effective, not that complying with the extortion is in your best interests.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside." I don't think it does. We'd have to know what information they are given, and what kind of pressure they are put under to decide if it's coercion or not.
  - grkvlt 9y ago
    Where are these people (apparently shoplifters who are too poor to purchase goods, and are therefore stealing them) getting the money to pay for these 'education' courses, in the first place?
- tomohawk 9y ago
  I'll go as far to agree that it is California extortion, whatever that is. How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? The up side in this case is that the shoplifters (who are now somehow the victims in your narrative) are allowed an alternative course of action that does not involve a criminal record or jail time. Any system, to be viable, needs a viable economic model. In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. There's nothing inherently morally superior about a non-profit. In fact, many non-profits are downright despicable. That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you.
  - lurr 9y ago
    That's absolutely extortion too and the way that prosecutors rob people of their day in court by saying plea bargain or excessive punishment is similarly disgusting. You might have guessed I have a pretty low view of the US criminal justice system.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? If a prosecutor demands money in exchange for not prosecuting you, that is extortion. Prosecutors having discretion does not make it extortion unless something is demanded in return for not prosecuting. (One might make a case that the current practice of soliciting plea deals are a form of extortion, but that is a whole other discussion.) > In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. Funding the system as they do creates incentives for abuse. While non-profits can be abused like for profits, there are more legal protections to limit their behavior and ability to generate profit from shady behavior. > That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you. I don't get your point. Yes, only the government is allowed to extort you and coerce your actions with force and there are strong legal limits to the ways in which we allow government to do that.

bsder 9y ago

> the deal is basically that suspected shoplifters are locked in a room I find this difficult to believe in the case of places like WalMart and Target with phalanxes of lawyers. Goodwill ... I could believe might not be quite so competent. Target, for example, won't even let their security people so much as touch someone who is literally walking out of the store with something like a stolen TV. The possibility of getting countersued is so high that it isn't worth it. The simply follow them with a camera to their car and record everything and later turn it over to the authorities if they decide to pursue. I imagine that with facial recognition, what's going to happen is these people will get blacklisted from the stores and flagged if they try to reappear.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- lurr 9y ago
  Sounds like the justice system working actually. I hope if you ever get caught up in something that you have a bleeding heart lawyer who works to ensure your rights are protected and you get a fair chance.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dahdum 9y ago

Sounds like the programs need to be tweaked a bit for state laws, but the giving the option of avoiding police action through education/restitution is a greater good in my opinion. Perhaps a court approved statement could be read to them which outlines the choice they have between the program or police report.

username223 9y ago
I don't see how you get from these programs to something positive. So a woman in a wheelchair is shaken down by a low-paid security guard for $500 for a $2 purse she may or may not have tried to steal. The logical next step is for the security guard to shake her down for $50 to make the whole thing go away. Either way it's extortion, and it's the inevitable result of for-profit law enforcement (see civil asset forfeiture).
- dahdum 9y ago
  Compared to the alternative? Yes, I think it's better she goes through the program then gets booked on misdemeanor shoplifting. I also think it's better that a dumb kid gets the program instead of entering the judicial system. And if they don't take the program, they still have the exact same opportunity to plead their case to the court. The details still need to be hashed out, but this is meant as a compassionate program.
  - username223 9y ago
    > this is meant as a compassionate program. No, this is meant as a business making money off accused petty criminals. Basic human decency suggests that you take the purse back to the shelf, let the lady in the wheelchair roll out the door, and make a note to watch her if she comes back. If she's shopping at a Goodwill, she's hardly wealthy, and if she's stealing $2 purses, taking $500 from her won't solve any problems.

oceanghost 9y ago

I used to live two blocks from that Goodwill and have been tehre. Orange is a really interesting sociological expirament. I lived in a 700k cottage in an insanely desirable historical district with a beautiful private university, but had gangbangers and barios in any direction (santa ana, tustin, anaheim, placentia). The homeless encampments down the street have made national news. I do not know how this level of inequality is sustainable. It's really easy to see how Goodwill could take advantadge of that situation. They're taking donations froim wealthy folks / college kids and reselling them to thje poor folk, and extorting the odd fellow it seems like.