Walmart’s Out-of-Control Crime Problem Is Driving Police Crazy

[RevoWood123]

Clearly we do not agree that Walmart should be paying out of pocket to improve their own security. I think it is a waste that their local police department has to send an officer to that store everyday because Walmart does not want to spend the money to improve secuirty systems/ policies/ staff.

 

[voidsherpa]

Clearly we do not agree that Walmart should be paying out of pocket to improve their own security. I think it is a waste that their local police department has to send an officer to that store everyday because Walmart does not want to spend the money to improve secuirty systems/ policies/ staff.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart shouldn't do things to prevent crime. I'm just saying that the police shouldn't ***** about going to a business to pick up criminals. Maybe they should start charging a 1k fine on top of it so can be their bread and butter.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Commercial property tax doesn't exist anymore? It sure as hell does where I'm at.

Wal-mart gets subsidies in the form of special tax districts.

Mayor to Walmart: Pay for Your Own Security | Fox Business

The Beech Grove Walmart story raises the controversy over what are called “tax increment financing districts.” In these districts carved out to cover the area in which a local Walmart store sits, the store does not have to pay property taxes for about 25 years, in exchange for the economic stimulus a Walmart would bring...

They do pay other taxes as you would expect.

 

[SwikLS]

I worked over night stocking a few years back and the other stockers that had been there a long time said the manager didnt do jack squat to run the store. She was more interested in the community politics and public appearance of the store (and herself most likely). It was the assistant managers that did all the work.

(no it wasnt the Shelbyville Walmart)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart shouldn't do things to prevent crime. I'm just saying that the police shouldn't ***** about going to a business to pick up criminals. Maybe they should start charging a 1k fine on top of it so can be their bread and butter.

So if the officer assigned to your neighborhood spends half his shift at Wal-mart dealing with shoplifters while there's burglaries, a sex predator breaking in to women's apartments, and people are waiting over an hour for a crash report...screw it. The police shouldn't complain. That was my reality for about two years. 2-4 runs a shift, about an hour each time. Compare to Meijer, Target, Menard's, or Target who called maybe once or twice a week. It's difficult to run an effective anti-burglary campaign when you're spending half your shift dealing with simple shoplifting cases.

But hey, shouldn't complain.

 

[bobzilla]

So if the officer assigned to your neighborhood spends half his shift at Wal-mart dealing with shoplifters while there's burglaries, a sex predator breaking in to women's apartments, and people are waiting over an hour for a crash report...screw it. The police shouldn't complain. That was my reality for about two years. 2-4 runs a shift, about an hour each time. Compare to Meijer, Target, Menard's, or Target who called maybe once or twice a week. It's difficult to run an effective anti-burglary campaign when you're spending half your shift dealing with simple shoplifting cases.

But hey, shouldn't complain.

Hire more officers? Obviously there's crime here.

 

[voidsherpa]

Wal-mart gets subsidies in the form of special tax districts.

So commercial property taxes still exist. Sounds like the local voting population should make changes in their elected officials.

 

[RevoWood123]

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart shouldn't do things to prevent crime. I'm just saying that the police shouldn't ***** about going to a business to pick up criminals. Maybe they should start charging a 1k fine on top of it so can be their bread and butter.

Hire more officers? Obviously there's crime here.

So commercial property taxes still exist. Sounds like the local voting population should make changes in their elected officials.

So the idea is that since Walmart pays taxes like all individuals do, they are entited to have an officer at their store all day long, and if the city has a problem with it then they should hire more officers thereby increasing the cost of government which ultimately lands on the taxpayers yet again? Meanwhile, Walmart is not getting robbed anymore, they don't have to spend any extra money, they increase their subsidy with the government, earn more profit, and we pay higher taxes.

 

[voidsherpa]

So the idea is that since Walmart pays taxes like all individuals do

You realize commercial property taxes are much, more than res rate (at least around here)? Also commercial properties usually vauled much, much more. Also No homestead subsidies, ect.

they are entited to have an officer at their store all day long

Last i saw in this discussion they were picking up criminals

and if the city has a problem with it then they should hire more officers thereby increasing the cost of government which ultimately lands on the taxpayers yet again?

If that local place wants to keep their tax incentive zones they do. Thats THEIR choice with their votes.

Meanwhile, Walmart is not getting robbed anymore,

Good, nobody should have to put up with getting robbed.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]they don't have to spend any extra money, they increase their subsidy with the government, earn more profit, and we pay higher taxes.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Maybe they'll spend it on extra lobbyists? I dont know but thats a separate issue.[/FONT]

 

[Expat]

I'll tell you what... you should see them Amish women when the put more fabric on the clearance rack.... you don't want to get in that mix....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hire more officers? Obviously there's crime here.

That'd be awesome. That goes back to subsidizing Wal-mart, or any other nuisance business, though. You want more cops, prosecutors and public defenders, court staff, jail beds, etc then someone gets to pay for it. Guess who? (hint: It ain't Wal-mart). Hidden costs are still costs.

 

[RevoWood123]

You realize commercial property taxes are much, more than res rate (at least around here)? Also commercial properties usually vauled much, much more. Also No homestead subsidies, ect.

Last i saw in this discussion they were picking up criminals

Yes I do realize that their taxes are higher, I also realize that they are being subsidized in order to earn bigger profits, where as the individual is not. So while Walmart is paying more, they are also getting relief, where as individuals are not. As far as our taxes go, they are paying for an equal share of police protection for the community, not just a Walmart store. Therefore, if Walmart wants to have an officer at their store full time, instead of spending money to update LP measures, then they should being paying the additional cost of having either an off duty officer there, or hiring more officers. It should not be burdened to the individuals in that community. And yes they are picking up criminals, which is in addition to the officer who sits in their LP office.

 

[bobzilla]

That'd be awesome. That goes back to subsidizing Wal-mart, or any other nuisance business, though. You want more cops, prosecutors and public defenders, court staff, jail beds, etc then someone gets to pay for it. Guess who? (hint: It ain't Wal-mart). Hidden costs are still costs.

So what's the solution? Shut down walmart? THat's what the majority of the WM snobs want anyway. Then where do those people go that are committing the crimes? They flood the other stores and you watch them become the next walmart. Then what? Shut them down?

Why arent we going after the root cause instead of bandaid fixes? If people weren't breaking the law, there wouldn't need to be police there. Am I wrong? Lock them up. Habitual offenders? Keep them locked up. They're not going to be rehabilitated if they are known repeat offenders.

But hey, that's just crazy talk. We don't want the criminals to get upset.

 

[voidsherpa]

Why arent we going after the root cause instead of bandaid fixes? If people weren't breaking the law, there wouldn't need to be police there. Am I wrong? Lock them up. Habitual offenders? Keep them locked up. They're not going to be rehabilitated if they are known repeat offenders.

You sir are not wrong.

 

[voidsherpa]

I also realize that they are being subsidized in order to earn bigger profits, where as the individual is not.

I am no fan of Wal-Mart, I actually dislike them quite a bit. When you mean subsidized are you talking on the Fed level? Cause this is purely on the local level, and beyond property tax incentives there are no local subsidizes being administered?

 

[eldirector]

Then where do those people go that are committing the crimes?
<snip>
Why arent we going after the root cause instead of bandaid fixes?

This is one of the best questions in the bunch.

We don't need more cops. We need fewer criminals.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So what's the solution? Shut down walmart? THat's what the majority of the WM snobs want anyway. Then where do those people go that are committing the crimes? They flood the other stores and you watch them become the next walmart. Then what? Shut them down?

Why arent we going after the root cause instead of bandaid fixes? If people weren't breaking the law, there wouldn't need to be police there. Am I wrong? Lock them up. Habitual offenders? Keep them locked up. They're not going to be rehabilitated if they are known repeat offenders.

But hey, that's just crazy talk. We don't want the criminals to get upset.

As has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, there are steps that Wal-mart can take that will reduce crime on their property. That is a root cause. If you leave your wallet in your driveway every night, it's not your fault it was stolen but you certainly set yourself up to be victimized, and more people will be willing to pick up a wallet in a driveway than break in to your house to steal it. Hence, more crime.

There is a huge disconnect in how this board deals with individuals vs corporation. If Wal-mart were a person, we'd be talking about personal responsibility and it's not the government's role to provide x,y, and z. With a corporation, why is there no personal responsibility? Why is it cool the rest of us subsidize them, but if we subsidize an individual for not taking responsibility it's 'socialism' and 'theft at gunpoint', etc?

The solution is simple. Implement real security and loss prevention measures, which will lower crime and address root issues....like Target does.

Real world example was gas station robberies in a county in Florida were through the roof. Ordinances forced 24 hour gas stations to have sufficient lighting, to have two clerks on duty at night, and to remove posters and ads from the window that blocked the view of the interior from the street. Very simply, a well lit business with good observation from passerbys and multiple clerks is psychologically more difficult to rob because it creates more anxiety for the prospective robber. A harder target has fewer takers. Robbers dropped dramatically. Root issue addressed, businesses did their part, and society as a whole benefited.

Edit:

https://hbr.org/2007/11/lessons-from-the-leaders-of-retail-loss-prevention

The lesson of five companies we studied—Target, Limited Brands, Best Buy, Gap, and CVS—isn’t that security people should arrest more thieves or spend more on technology, the approaches that have dominated retail loss prevention...The companies in our study were recommended by a panel of specialists on the basis of their innovative approaches and their success in keeping shrinkage low. The average shrinkage rate of the five was 44% below the U.S. mean, and one company’s rate was 70% below. We determined that these companies tend to rely on nine practices in developing an effective approach to loss prevention.

It's not like it can't be done.

 

[RevoWood123]

So what's the solution? Shut down walmart? THat's what the majority of the WM snobs want anyway. Then where do those people go that are committing the crimes? They flood the other stores and you watch them become the next walmart. Then what? Shut them down?

Why arent we going after the root cause instead of bandaid fixes? If people weren't breaking the law, there wouldn't need to be police there. Am I wrong? Lock them up. Habitual offenders? Keep them locked up. They're not going to be rehabilitated if they are known repeat offenders.

But hey, that's just crazy talk. We don't want the criminals to get upset.

Habitual shoplifters might spend all of an hour in jail before being released, unless they have other felonies on their record. I was just talking to an officer yesterday about such matters. Took a lady to jail because it was her 60th time being cited for shoplifting, she was out in an hour.

But you're right, lets not make Walmart spend their own money to make it harder, lets burden a local LE agency more and local community with higher taxes to put an end to shoplifting there.

As far as subsidies go, Walmart doesn't need any. Federal or local, Walmart doesn't need help to be profitable, they can figure that out on their own, or they don't need to be in business. As compared to the individual who is paying tax and receiving no subsidy. That should be apparent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It isn't LE's job to stand guard at your front door all day. They show up when called, take a report or make an arrest, and then go back to their patrol. If you want/need someone onsite 24x7 it is up to you to make arrangements.

In any case, no need to hire off-duty LE if you don't want. Lots of other options.

When you have patrons nearly getting run over by motorcyclists gathering at a neighboring establishment running their motorcycles at high speed ON THE SIDEWALK IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE DOOR and the police won't get up off their dead asses to do anything about it, there is a problem. When you have chronic problems again on the streets and sidewalks and get told to hire an off-duty on your dime, there is a problem.

 

[SMiller]

When you have patrons nearly getting run over by motorcyclists gathering at a neighboring establishment running their motorcycles at high speed ON THE SIDEWALK IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE DOOR and the police won't get up off their dead asses to do anything about it, there is a problem. When you have chronic problems again on the streets and sidewalks and get told to hire an off-duty on your dime, there is a problem.

Stop spending your money there, then you will have no reason to go there, then it won't matter what happens there...


Seriously folks vote with your wallet.

For the Target lovers, don't forget their outspoken stance on same sex and weapons...