I'm just giving you my take on it based on firsthand experience: Very rarely will stores accuse someone of shoplifting without having a good amount of proof. It's pointless to accuse someone of shoplifting when you don't have hard evidence, and even then it's pretty easy to prove someone's innocence or guilt when they are found to either have or not have stolen merchandise on their person. If someone is not actually a shoplifter, it is not in the store's interest to accuse them of such when there is so little to gain - the time and effort spent accusing an innocent person of shoplifting and trying to scam them could be much better spent actually running the ****ing store.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Nothing to see here folks, just another typical lib hit piece about "eeeeevil capitalist peegs".
Thank you, Quazi!
Asked whether CEC takes steps to ensure that innocent people aren’t simply agreeing to pay for their courses because they’re too scared to deal with police and prosecutors, Caffaro deflected, saying that CEC has nothing to do with the approach retailers take in identifying suspects.These two higher ups seem confused at the messages they are issuing.“It’s a win from every angle,” he said. “It’s a win for the offender. It’s a win for the retailer. It’s a win for the criminal justice system. It’s a win for the community. Who loses in this?”
Will they be offering this program to cashiers who accidentally under ring a customer? Or to the customer? Or both?
The unethical revenue potential is off the charts.
Copied from the OP
Thoughts are? Is my commentary -
Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of punishment
Imagine you’re browsing at Bloomingdale’s when a security guard taps you on the shoulder and accuses you of shoplifting. He takes you to a private room, sits you down, and runs your name through a database to see if you have any outstanding warrants. Then he tells you that you have two options. The first involves him calling the police, who might arrest you and take you to jail. The second allows you to walk out of the store immediately, no questions asked—right after you sign an admission of guilt and agree to pay $320 to take an online course designed to make you never want to steal again.
Which would you choose?
If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.