Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s all about Organized Retail Crime.
...
I favor draconian consequences. Chop a finger off for every conviction.
The
Thank you for your dissertation on organized retail theft. But you really need to ask yourself a few questions. Such as if there are all of these "organized crime rings", why do they only steal from stores in certain areas?
There are states that have higher thresholds for felony convictions, but they still prosecute the misdemeanors. In California, and specifically with the POS San Francisco has for a DA they won't even touch a case. With no deterrent, it is basically a free-for-all.
The punishment is probably the only thing I agree with you on, as that would be a big deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
In many areas, Walgreens and CVS have over saturated local markets. Increasingly, nearly every grocer and big box has a pharmacy.
In 2019, Walgreens announced its intention to close unprofitable 200 stores in 2020.
What’s another 5?
What's another 5? These stores are spending 46 times the amount on security and losing $1000 per day which is 5 times the company average. This isn't about "oversaturation", this is about them being robbed blind over and over because there are no repercussions for the criminals.
According to Organized Retail Crime / Loss Prevention specialists and their trade associations, it is all about online sales.
Most of this stolen stuff works it’s way through fencing middlemen and is eventually sold online, eBay, Craig’s List, Facebook Marketplace, Amazon etc, the modern pawn shop network.
Third party sellers are not particularly interested in the source of their source.
No shortage of consumers have no particular interest in knowing why this bottle of $25 shampoo or jar of moisturizer in a seal unopened condition is Buy it Now, for $12.99., plus S&H.
Re Bold: Hey, that's me!
You can also find the ill-gotten booty being sold right on the street sometimes in close proximity to the actual brick and mortar it was lifted from. Of course it went through a few intermediaries prior to being put back up for sale. Also, flea markets are huge resale avenues for the stolen goods. A lot of counterfeit items can be found there too...namely purses.
It's interesting what they steal too - laundry detergent, razors, deodorant, baby food. The buyers gotta know it's hot but don't care because of how cheap these necessities are compared to retail price inside a Walgreens or CVS.
A quick Google Maps count shows 20 Walgreens locations in the city, presumably including the 5 that are slated to close. With 10 other stores closed since 2019, the city will have lost half of its Walgreens stores in less than two years. Better hurry, shoplifters, before the rest of them close up too. And for the residents who will soon be without their stores . . . next time, vote better.
What does this have to do with liberals. Why are you making this about politics saying people should vote better. Walgreens just needs more security. And I don't believe they are closing stores because of this.
What does this have to do with liberals. Why are you making this about politics saying people should vote better. Walgreens just needs more security. And I don't believe they are closing stores because of this.
Because this kind of thing (closing stores due to theft) seems to only happen in areas with very liberal DAs who are soft on prosecuting crime, particularly theft. This sutation basically reads as 1+1=2 so not sure why you're confused.
What does this have to do with liberals. Why are you making this about politics saying people should vote better. Walgreens just needs more security. And I don't believe they are closing stores because of this.
All the enhanced security in the world won't do anything when shoplifting has essentially been decriminalized, which is what happened in San Francisco.
A quick Google Maps count shows 20 Walgreens locations in the city, presumably including the 5 that are slated to close. With 10 other stores closed since 2019, the city will have lost half of its Walgreens stores in less than two years. Better hurry, shoplifters, before the rest of them close up too. And for the residents who will soon be without their stores . . . next time, vote better.
This is what happens when Leftist programs are allowed to take hold.
What does this have to do with liberals. Why are you making this about politics saying people should vote better. Walgreens just needs more security. And I don't believe they are closing stores because of this.
There is a chain of answers to your question, including some that are found in the linked article:
Quote:
“Organized retail crime continues to be a challenge facing retailers across San Francisco, and we are not immune to that,” said Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso. “Retail theft across our San Francisco stores has continued to increase in the past few months to five times our chain average. During this time to help combat this issue, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment.”
Quote:
California law dictates that theft of less than $950 in goods is penalized as a nonviolent misdemeanor.
It's not just that people are shoplifting in San Francisco, it's that they're doing it at FIVE TIMES the nationwide chain average. Moreover, Walgreens invested in security measures at FORTY-SIX TIMES the chain average. With such high losses, and such huge expenditures, there's simply no way that this can be sustained. Hence, stores being closed. Also note that thefts of less than $950 are treated as a much lesser offense, which you can be sure the criminals are very well aware of.
The missing piece of the puzzle, not mentioned in the article, is that the District Attorney, i.e. the public official responsible for prosecuting criminals, is an extreme radical and son of domestic terrorists named Chesa Boudin. He has made it clear where his sympathies lie, and it's certainly not with the law-abiding, to say nothing of major corporations. He simply won't prosecute most (all?) shoplifting cases. Thus, there is effectively no penalty for shoplifting in San Francisco.
This is what I meant by "vote better." The people of San Francisco elected Boudin, knowing full well what his background was and where his sympathies lie. He has certainly not made either of these things a secret. And yet, they voted for him anyway. And they're getting exactly what they voted for. Maybe if the voters had shown more discernment, and thought about the results of the policies that Boudin would implement, they might have chosen better. But they didn't, and now they have to live with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
