It's okay to shoplift from Walmart, Target and other big box stores
Take a look at this video:
That's Everett D. Mitchell. He's the Director of Community Relations in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Office of University Relations. After this video began to attract attention, focused on his statements in it, he released this statement through the university:
"During my career, I’ve served as a Dane County assistant district attorney, the pastor of Christ the Solid Rock Baptist Church and a liaison between the university, community leaders, businesses and people of faith.
I am a lawyer and I believe in the law. I also believe in equal
justice for all, and in reforms to our criminal justice system that
address disparities in policing for people of color. As co-chair of a
United Way taskforce on policing, I am part of the national conversation
on this vital issue.
I am saddened that those with differing agendas have taken a selective portion of a larger conversation out of context in an effort to discredit my views.
My comments around “big box” retailers were in no way an endorsement of shoplifting or other criminal behavior, but part of a point about how the distribution of police resources to areas with high numbers of misdemeanor crimes can bring low income or people of color into frequent contact with law enforcement.
As it relates to misdemeanor offenses themselves, I believe the community should explore a restorative justice model in which non-violent offenders between the ages of 17 to 25 perform community service.
Through my many roles, I believe in working with law enforcement and the community to reduce disparities, while also ensuring Madison is a safe place for everyone."
Clearly his primary interest is public safety. I get that. But you cannot ignore what he said and how his "clarification" just don't jive. An extract of his comments from this video:
"I just don't think they should be prosecuting cases or going up cases where people steal from Walmart. I don't think Target or all them other places, the big boxes who have insurance should be used as justification, the fact that people steal from them should be used as justification that they should start engaging in aggressive police practices."
There are two different thoughts in that statement which is not taken out of context. One is that the higher rate of crime in certain stores and in certain areas shouldn't be used as a justification for altering police procedures in a way that results in more aggressive enforcement of the laws. That's fair.
But to out and out call for certain retailers to be ignored by local law enforcement when they report shoplifting is indeed an outright endorsement of crimes against those businesses. Is he saying that because these businesses have insurance, those who steal from them shouldn't be subject to the law because the insurance companies prevent the retailers from suffering any loss? That's how it seems to me and that's a complete and utter fallacy. Shrinkage, as these retailers call loss through theft is a huge problem. A 2013 study of shoplifting revealed that more than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from stores in the U. S. annually. That comes out to a cost to each and every one of us of around $41 annually. That's right. Reach into your wallet, pull out two $20 bills along with a single dollar bill and you hold in your hand your share of the average annual cost of just the goods lost to shoplifting. We haven't included the cost of loss-prevention and other costs involved in thievery.
Police tactics should be based on public safety AND protection of property, with the former taking priority over the latter. But that doesn't mean we give license to steal just because big retailers have insurance.
That's Everett D. Mitchell. He's the Director of Community Relations in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Office of University Relations. After this video began to attract attention, focused on his statements in it, he released this statement through the university:
"During my career, I’ve served as a Dane County assistant district attorney, the pastor of Christ the Solid Rock Baptist Church and a liaison between the university, community leaders, businesses and people of faith.
I am saddened that those with differing agendas have taken a selective portion of a larger conversation out of context in an effort to discredit my views.
My comments around “big box” retailers were in no way an endorsement of shoplifting or other criminal behavior, but part of a point about how the distribution of police resources to areas with high numbers of misdemeanor crimes can bring low income or people of color into frequent contact with law enforcement.
As it relates to misdemeanor offenses themselves, I believe the community should explore a restorative justice model in which non-violent offenders between the ages of 17 to 25 perform community service.
Through my many roles, I believe in working with law enforcement and the community to reduce disparities, while also ensuring Madison is a safe place for everyone."
Clearly his primary interest is public safety. I get that. But you cannot ignore what he said and how his "clarification" just don't jive. An extract of his comments from this video:
"I just don't think they should be prosecuting cases or going up cases where people steal from Walmart. I don't think Target or all them other places, the big boxes who have insurance should be used as justification, the fact that people steal from them should be used as justification that they should start engaging in aggressive police practices."
There are two different thoughts in that statement which is not taken out of context. One is that the higher rate of crime in certain stores and in certain areas shouldn't be used as a justification for altering police procedures in a way that results in more aggressive enforcement of the laws. That's fair.
But to out and out call for certain retailers to be ignored by local law enforcement when they report shoplifting is indeed an outright endorsement of crimes against those businesses. Is he saying that because these businesses have insurance, those who steal from them shouldn't be subject to the law because the insurance companies prevent the retailers from suffering any loss? That's how it seems to me and that's a complete and utter fallacy. Shrinkage, as these retailers call loss through theft is a huge problem. A 2013 study of shoplifting revealed that more than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from stores in the U. S. annually. That comes out to a cost to each and every one of us of around $41 annually. That's right. Reach into your wallet, pull out two $20 bills along with a single dollar bill and you hold in your hand your share of the average annual cost of just the goods lost to shoplifting. We haven't included the cost of loss-prevention and other costs involved in thievery.
Police tactics should be based on public safety AND protection of property, with the former taking priority over the latter. But that doesn't mean we give license to steal just because big retailers have insurance.
posted by me at 9:52 PM
<< Home