Archive for Sunday, August 6, 2006

Police question suspected shoplifter

August 6, 2006


A Lawrence man is suspected of going on a massive shoplifting spree at a local store that involved the theft of everything from soup bowls to cufflinks.

Police were called to Target, 3201 Iowa, shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday to respond to a report that the 22-year-old man was trying to leave the store with a cart full of stolen items.

Officers recovered items at the scene, including two basketballs, two soccer balls, a dust pan and broom, a tennis racquet, a grater, a set of dinner plates, a set of soup bowls and 16 plastic drinking glasses.

Officers interviewed the man and are now investigating at least 10 related incidents.

So far, they have recovered other items believed stolen from Target including a set of kitchen knives, a spice rack, cufflinks and men's sportcoats, curtain panels, bath towels, silk ties, silk sports shorts, Armor All tire foam, workout gloves, tube socks, a package of mints, a rug, air fresheners and a jump rope.

The man had not been arrested as of Thursday, but police likely will send a report to Dist. Atty. Charles Branson's office for possible charges.


Mike Birch 11 years, 10 months ago

I've heard of going on a shopping spree before but this

guy is ridiculous! Funny story though!


rayikeo 11 years, 10 months ago

Shoplifting is just like armed robbery without a gun. The main differance is armed robbery is covered by store Insurance, shoplifting costs are paid by other shoppers in higher prices to cover the losses. That is you and me! This guy should be in jail right now and the police should have his house searched for other merchandise. He has probably been doing this for a long time. JAIL HIM!!!

black_watch 11 years, 10 months ago

I quote rayikeo: "armed robbery without a gun".

... What?

Do you realize what you just said? Go have another cup of coffee, it's early for you.

also, if you want to play that way, losses from shoplifting are tax-deductible. it doesn't affect prices one way or the other.

rayikeo 11 years, 10 months ago

Reply to "black_watch. I had my second cup of coffee.

Now let me get this right, and you can correct me if I am wrong.

You "condone" shoplifting because it doesn't cost the store anything, is that what you said?

rayikeo 11 years, 10 months ago


Lets say a shoplifted item has a list price of $100. It cost the store $50 from the manufacture. The store writes off the $50 cost. The tax rate for this store is 30% so the tax credit is 30% of $50 = $15. The other $35 is a direct loss to the store. It has to be made up in the price of other merchandise sales. Therefore they raise prices on what they sell.

black_watch 11 years, 10 months ago

Of course I don't condone shoplifting.

If we're going to use buzz-words like "fuzzy math", let's try this. What you've just done by implying that I condone shoplifting what's commonly called "spin".

In this case, it's also known in Latin as 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc', or 'with this, therefore because of this' in English. This is a premature assumption of cause and effect, or assuming correlation equals causation - the presence of two things together implies one causes the other. Because I made a statement about the cost of shoplifting not being as bad as stated, I am a shoplifter. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Your statement may also be considered "ad hominem", or "arguing against the person", not the issue - also known as a personal attack.

Both of these things invalidate a logical argument. Thanks for playing! The White House may have a job available for you.)

I find the best policy when in need is to ask someone, not steal. That's what friends and family are for. This fellow was taking things that are wants, not needs. Sports jackets, basketballs, ties and tire foam? Give me a break.

But at any rate, it's not such an impact on a mega-chain like Target as you think, or as they'd like you to think, unless the store is experiencing a truly tremendous volume of theft, precisely because they do calculate for these losses.

Now, if the case is that they're really experiencing a serious string of thefts, then their loss prevention department (Target has some of the best nationwide, from what I've read) needs to re-evaluate their procedures, training, and personnel.

How do you know the tax figures for that store? Are you an employee or management of that store, or a similar one?

I'm still laughing about "armed robbery without a gun". This guy may have been wrong, but he didn't threaten human life.

egypt 11 years, 10 months ago

Honostly thats one of hte easier ways to shoplift is just walk out the front door with a cart full of stuff A) People assume no one is stupid enough to actully do it B) If someone is crazy enought to do it most people dont want to mess with that person

Of course most people go for tvs, dvd players ect, Large items that dont fit in a bag and are normally carried out of the store.

For anyone wanting to shoplift we just learned its obviously pretty easy to do at target :-D

bambam 11 years, 10 months ago

did he sell any thing to yellow house

badger 11 years, 10 months ago

Retail stores have what they call 'acceptable shrinkage'. It covers loss due to breakage, theft, the cashier giving back two ones that are stuck together, and when the manager at the snack bar has to give you a free soda because someone screwed something up. Retail chains will set 'shrinkage goals' for the stores, which the stores are expected to meet. The 'acceptable shrinkage' is already written into the cost of what you buy.

When I worked for a chain toy store in college, our 'acceptable shrinkage' was 1.2%. Given that people steal toy stores BLIND, we still beat that margin every single audit. But you know what? The prices never went down. One audit showed that companywide, shrinkage was less than 1%. Great news, but prices didn't go down, profits went up. If we didn't meet our number, prices wouldn't go up; loss prevention training just increased.

There's a lot more that goes into setting prices than shoplifting. Yes, if no shoplifting ever existed, perhaps prices might be a percent lower, given that they wouldn't have to spend as much money on loss prevention. But perhaps not, because they'd still not make the full profit on everything that entered their inventory and they'd still have to spend some money on loss prevention.

Shoplifting is wrong. It's taking things that don't belong to you, which is at the very least disrespectful of the property rights of the person it does belong to. However, I think the argument that 'the store has to eat that 35 dollars' is a little disingenuous, because a store that size will eat more than 35 dollars a month just in cashier miscounts, or in things that fall off shelves and break, or milk that goes bad because a manager bought too much, or having to honor a store special an extra week because of a misprint in the catalog.

People always try to put up this direct correlation of, "OMG somebody's gotta pay for it!" Well, the whole cost of having a retail store, which encompasses all the tiny ways money might be lost, accounts for a good deal more than just the losses to shoplifting, so the direct relationship issue doesn't really fly.

Ethical question for those whose primary objection to shoplifting is that it increases prices for everyone:

When you accidentally knock a jar of pickles off the shelf and break it, do you pay for it? If not, why not? You've just cost the store as much money as if you'd stolen it, which means prices will go up just as much. Now, this doesn't apply to people who oppose theft as a violation of property rights, just those who justify their anti-shoplifting stance based on the 'social cost' of it all.

Just something to think about the next time you drop a bag of apples, bruising half of them, and then put it back and take a different one.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.