No Walgreens For You

[fly girl]

I'm also here to throw the spotlight on Fly Girl's colorful Seinfeldian language, which deserves some appreciation!

Sweet fancy Moses is probably my favorite line. (from one of my favorite episodes)

Bizarro world ... how can you not like Elaine trying to get out of the Kevin's apartment with all the locks.

 

[bcla]

It's OK. I'm sure we'll have a new program soon to address the "pharmacy deserts" in SF.

Yep. Only 53 (I guess minus these 5) Walgreens, 22 CVS, 10 Safeway supermarkets with a pharmacy, several independents, and all the hospitals. That'll be tough finding a place to get a prescription filled. Not.

But really - Walgreens is actually in many poorer neighborhoods in San Francisco where the alternative used to be expensive corner/liquor stores. They're not actually leaving the areas where there's no alternative. Like I said, they've been overextended in San Francisco for years.

 

[VandVsmama]

This just breaks my heart as I used to adore San Fransisco. In my flying days I would bid trips all the time to layover there in Union Square, Pier 39, and Chinatown. When I first started flying, my first trip off of probation (everyone was put on probation the first 6 months) was 24 hours as a solo flight attendant on a "K-line" trip -- a trip created to help staff wide body aircraft that needed extra crew members. I was by myself at the young age of 22 in a city I had never been in. Not once did I feel unsafe. I walked the streets and took the trolley like I was queen of the city. I remember enjoying a fancy meal on the water all by myself to toast my pay raise (lol) as a starting FA salary is abysmal. That trip I fell in love with San Fransisco and it was a city I was always excited to visit.

Last time I was there was April 2019, and I noticed the sad decline of a once beautiful city. The fact I had to dodge poop on the street (didn't get the app) was enough for me to shake my head and wonder what has gone horribly wrong here. Shell of its former self. I was with my husband this visit but I don't know if I would have felt as comfortable as I had in the past if I was alone. (my guess, I wouldn't)

I still want to have a soft spot for San Fran, but San Diego has taken the lead and deservedly so. (although I still say the food wins hands down in San Fransisco.)

I hear ya. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and we'd regularly do day trips up to SF. It was a lot of fun. We went to see a lot of musicals in downtown SF. Plus going to Alcatraz, Pier 39, the SF Zoo, etc. The FAO Schwartz store in Union Square was amazing. We loved just browsing in Nieman Marcus there, too.

But now? Forget it. I won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The place has more identities than Sybil.

 

[Mysterian]

The place has more identities than Sybil.

LuvOrlando coming in hot with a Sybil zinger!

That's right, Disfans, I'll be here offering color commentary with my guest, 11-time NBA All Star, Charles Barkley.

 

[jpakstis]

Well, there is another reason that the Police data may not be accurate. In 2014 voters in California Passed Prop 47 which basically decriminalized theft if the total value of the theft is $950. So stores don't detain shoplifters anymore, because if they do, the Police won't respond. The Police won't respond because the District Attorney won't prosecute because it is no longer a felony.

This is incorrect. Prop 47 didn't decriminalize shoplifting. It actually criminalized shoplifting. Prop 47 created California Penal Code 459.5, which created a criminal offense for shoplifting. Prior to the passage of Prop 47, shoplifting was charged as Petty Theft; there was no shoplifting criminal offense on the books. Every other state has a particularized shoplifting offense. In Massachusetts, where I am a prosecutor, we have had a shoplifting statute on the books since 1981.

Petty theft is a misdemeanor, punishable by 6 months in county jail. After passage of 459.5, the punishment for shoplifting is the exact same, 6 months in jail. Also that $950 threshold is no especially high bar and was in keeping with the prior theft criminal code. The threshold for Petty/Grand Theft is $950. This threshold was last increased in 2010 so its not a recent increase. Reviewing the statute and the language of Prop 47, that $950 shoplifting threshold was picked to keep it in line with the already established petty/grand theft threshold. Other states actually have higher thresholds. For instance, in Arizona, the threshold between a felony and misdemeanor shoplifting is $1,000.

In fact, 459.5 might have allowed for more (or at least earlier) law enforcement intervention. Comparing the definitions of theft from the California Penal Code versus shoplifting, the difference is asportation. Here is the definition of theft (regardless of petty/grand): " Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another...is guilty of theft." Here is the definition of shoplifting: "shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." Prior to the passage of Prop 47, the crime of petty theft was not completed until the person carried away the property. California Penal Code 459.5 states that an individual has committed the crime of shoplifting once they enter into a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny. It doesn't matter if they actually steal it or not.

These sort of distinctions matter in granting a shop owner or employee the right to detain a shoplifter. If the crime isn't completed until after they have left the store, the employee has to detain them on the street or the at the very least toward the front, past the registers. This may create an incentive to bolt since the exit is close. If the crime is completed before (like in 459.5), they can can detain them well in the store. The last important note is that while shoplifting is a misdemeanor, it can be elevated to a felony based on the offender's criminal history. However, law enforcement/prosecution isn't going to know that until they make the initial arrest and can run the offender's criminal history. So the argument that "police won't respond/DA won't prosecute because its a misdemeanor" is untrue.

So TL/DR, Prop 47 criminalized rather than de-criminalized shoplifting. The threshold is in line with the prior theft statute on the books.

 

[tvguy]

This is incorrect. Prop 47 didn't decriminalize shoplifting. It actually criminalized shoplifting. Prop 47 created California Penal Code 459.5, which created a criminal offense for shoplifting. Prior to the passage of Prop 47, shoplifting was charged as Petty Theft; there was no shoplifting criminal offense on the books. Every other state has a particularized shoplifting offense. In Massachusetts, where I am a prosecutor, we have had a shoplifting statute on the books since 1981.

Petty theft is a misdemeanor, punishable by 6 months in county jail. After passage of 459.5, the punishment for shoplifting is the exact same, 6 months in jail. Also that $950 threshold is no especially high bar and was in keeping with the prior theft criminal code. The threshold for Petty/Grand Theft is $950. This threshold was last increased in 2010 so its not a recent increase. Reviewing the statute and the language of Prop 47, that $950 shoplifting threshold was picked to keep it in line with the already established petty/grand theft threshold. Other states actually have higher thresholds. For instance, in Arizona, the threshold between a felony and misdemeanor shoplifting is $1,000.

In fact, 459.5 might have allowed for more (or at least earlier) law enforcement intervention. Comparing the definitions of theft from the California Penal Code versus shoplifting, the difference is asportation. Here is the definition of theft (regardless of petty/grand): " Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another...is guilty of theft." Here is the definition of shoplifting: "shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." Prior to the passage of Prop 47, the crime of petty theft was not completed until the person carried away the property. California Penal Code 459.5 states that an individual has committed the crime of shoplifting once they enter into a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny. It doesn't matter if they actually steal it or not.

These sort of distinctions matter in granting a shop owner or employee the right to detain a shoplifter. If the crime isn't completed until after they have left the store, the employee has to detain them on the street or the at the very least toward the front, past the registers. This may create an incentive to bolt since the exit is close. If the crime is completed before (like in 459.5), they can can detain them well in the store. The last important note is that while shoplifting is a misdemeanor, it can be elevated to a felony based on the offender's criminal history. However, law enforcement/prosecution isn't going to know that until they make the initial arrest and can run the offender's criminal history. So the argument that "police won't respond/DA won't prosecute because its a misdemeanor" is untrue.

So TL/DR, Prop 47 criminalized rather than de-criminalized shoplifting. The threshold is in line with the prior theft statute on the books.

I don't think there is a retailer or a member of the California Law Enforcement community that would agree.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Wasn't this the town that decided it was unjust to penalize same gender child sex offenders more severely than hetero child sex offenders, so instead of making the latter version more harsh to fit the vile crime, this special sort of place decided to take the opposite position and soften penalties so they would be even? Called it resolving an inequity, like it's justice. So this is the same place, right? Maybe I should move all my stuff to Walgreens...

 

[kdonnel]

The first week of MBA classes, they teach you the answer to every question: It DEPENDS.

To a casual observer, if a store is making a profit, keep it. But that is not the way the business universe works.

Businesses need to earn a certain level of profit to be retained -- because if they don't, those assets can be shifted somewhere else to earn a acceptable rate of profit.

When I was in school, that was called the "hurdle rate." And investments -- any and all investments -- had to clear that hurdle rate or the business would reallocate their assets. Some PhD candidate has probably come up with a much cooler name by now, but that's what it was called when I was in school.

I worked for a giant holding company that split into two.

The less profitable companies all got put in a new holding company.

The company did not want to the weighed down by companies making less than 10% profit.

The money could be better spent on buying more profitable companies.

 

[JimMIA]

I don't think there is a retailer or a member of the California Law Enforcement community that would agree.

I know an old retired-fart cop in Florida who agrees.

If @jpakstis explanation of the basic details of CA's shoplifting statute is correct (and I have no reason to doubt this explanation), Prop 47 made a fundamental change in what constituted a crime and made police response and prosecution much easier and more likely. As they noted, the primary difference is "asportation," which is lawyer-speak for movement or carrying away. That's a fundamental difference, not some legal hair-splitting.

In fact, 459.5 might have allowed for more (or at least earlier) law enforcement intervention. Comparing the definitions of theft from the California Penal Code versus shoplifting, the difference is asportation. Here is the definition of theft (regardless of petty/grand): " Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another...is guilty of theft."

Here is the definition of shoplifting: "shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." Prior to the passage of Prop 47, the crime of petty theft was not completed until the person carried away the property.

California Penal Code 459.5 states that an individual has committed the crime of shoplifting once they enter into a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny. It doesn't matter if they actually steal it or not.

 

[tvguy]

I know an old retired-fart cop in Florida who agrees.

If @jpakstis explanation of the basic details of CA's shoplifting statute is correct (and I have no reason to doubt this explanation), Prop 47 made a fundamental change in what constituted a crime and made police response and prosecution much easier and more likely. As they noted, the primary difference is "asportation," which is lawyer-speak for movement or carrying away. That's a fundamental difference, not some legal hair-splitting.

What in reality it did was, police won't respond, because the District Attorney won't prosecute, so merchants don't even report shoplifting anymore. As others have posted, in California, shoplifters now just fill up a cart and walk out. So not just my opinion, it is the reality today.

 

[bcla]

I know an old retired-fart cop in Florida who agrees.

If @jpakstis explanation of the basic details of CA's shoplifting statute is correct (and I have no reason to doubt this explanation), Prop 47 made a fundamental change in what constituted a crime and made police response and prosecution much easier and more likely. As they noted, the primary difference is "asportation," which is lawyer-speak for movement or carrying away. That's a fundamental difference, not some legal hair-splitting.

I remember what it was like before, as many retailers were asking for a change to the law, since they weren't allowed to act until someone exits the doors with merchandise. So stuffing stuff into ones clothes might look suspicious but couldn't be actionable.

I think one of the problems here is simply Walgreens and their policies that don't seek to stop anyone for fear of someone getting injured and/or suing them.

This isn't limited to Walgreens. Apple Stores get burglarized in broad daylight, and even their unarmed security guards are told to just stand there and observe. But armed guards may be allowed to intervene. Paying for a police presence may also be worthwhile. I still don't get it though, since it's very difficult to use Apple devices that are carefully cataloged and can easily be bricked by Apple. I've heard of them being sold essentially for spare parts (like LCD screens and batteries), but even then a thief should worry about Apple maybe placing serial numbers on the parts, that then could brick those parts if they're identified as coming from a list of stolen parts.

 

[penn19]

I hate seeing that we all seem to be giving a collective shrug. Oh well. It’s not affecting me. But in reality it affects all of us in one way or another. If nothing else then it emboldens the criminals to keep at it. And it escalates. Until finally it’s going to hit home. We have become desensitized to all of it. Not to change the topic but look at the woman on the train in Philly. We have lost our moral compass.

 

[fivikse]

I live in a safe suburb in Texas and was in my local Walgreens and watched a guy walk out with a full arm basket of stuff. The cashier yelled at him, but the guy just casually walked out. He didn't even try to be discreet or run. So all the mirrors and tags etc were meaningless - he just didn't care. I had never seen anything like it. So while I certainly don't know the details behind Walgreens corporate decisions, I do believe that shoplifting seems to be getting out of hand in many places. (And yes, I realize this is just one anecdote, but it made a big impression on me!)

 

[jpakstis]

I don't think there is a retailer or a member of the California Law Enforcement community that would agree.

What wouldn’t they agree with? The law as it was written? Or are you now arguing about practical discussions of enforcement/prosecution? I wouldn’t even begin to be able to bring up empirical evidence of decisions by LE/prosecutors not to prosecute shoplifting (whether stated or unstated) but since you’re the one making the argument, it’s your case to prove.

However your original thesis was that Prop 47 decriminalized shoplifting. That is factually untrue.

 

[bcla]

What wouldn’t they agree with? The law as it was written? Or are you now arguing about practical discussions of enforcement/prosecution? I wouldn’t even begin to be able to bring up empirical evidence of decisions by LE/prosecutors not to prosecute shoplifting (whether stated or unstated) but since you’re the one making the argument, it’s your case to prove.

However your original thesis was that Prop 47 decriminalized shoplifting. That is factually untrue.

Of course it's untrue that they don't go after shoplifters, although the main difficulty is in catching anyone with corporate policies that don't allow resistance.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...ed-8-million-in-stolen-merchandise-recovered/​

The arrests came as a result of a joint investigation by the Division of Law Enforcement’s White Collar Investigation Team, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s Crime Suppression Unit, the California Highway Patrol, and the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office.​

​

On September 30, during a search and arrest warrant operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, agents seized and recovered approximately $8 million of stolen merchandise from retailers across the San Francisco Bay Area including CVS, Target and Walgreens as well as $85,000 in cash from the suspects’ residences, a warehouse and storage facilities.​

Not sure why the US Postal Inspection Service is issuing press releases about it though. I'm not thinking there was any mail fraud/theft.

https://www.uspis.gov/news/news-art...ted-8-million-in-stolen-merchandise-recovered

 

[tvguy]

What wouldn’t they agree with? The law as it was written? Or are you now arguing about practical discussions of enforcement/prosecution? I wouldn’t even begin to be able to bring up empirical evidence of decisions by LE/prosecutors not to prosecute shoplifting (whether stated or unstated) but since you’re the one making the argument, it’s your case to prove.

However your original thesis was that Prop 47 decriminalized shoplifting. That is factually untrue.

Like I said, retailers would disagree because it is true in CALIFORNIA. If they call with a shoplifter, they are told there will be new law enforcement response for the reasons several of us have mentioned whether you want to believe it or not. But it isn't LE or the DA's fault, the voters approved the law, and now have to life with their decision.

 

[JimMIA]

Of course it's untrue that they don't go after shoplifters, although the main difficulty is in catching anyone with corporate policies that don't allow resistance.

Right, it's not a LAW problem -- the law is there. It's not a POLICE problem -- the police will do their jobs.

It's a merchant problem, and the merchants are making a business decision that is very heavily influenced by the potential liability if their employees attempt to detain shoplifters for the police. They are afraid that a criminal will be injured, or an employee will be injured -- and they know that both would sue the employer.

 

[bcla]

Right, it's not a LAW problem -- the law is there. It's not a POLICE problem -- the police will do their jobs.

It's a merchant problem, and the merchants are making a business decision that is very heavily influenced by the potential liability if their employees attempt to detain shoplifters for the police. They are afraid that a criminal will be injured, or an employee will be injured -- and they know that both would sue the employer.

Sure. I don't really see this as a problem that's specific to San Francisco. Organized theft rings happen all around the country. These seem to be more common at Walgreens, CVS, and other drug stores. It could be that they're generally smaller and easier to get in and out. In San Francisco most Walgreens and CVS stores are in neighborhood locations where there's a quick getaway. I'd think that something like a basement mall location (there was one Walgreens in San Francisco like that) would make exiting much more difficult.

They generally target high value items. I was surprised to see baby formula among the most stolen items. I occasionally bought some at drug stores in a pinch, and they often had hard to remove anti-theft stickers saying that it wasn't authorized for resale at any place other than that specific retailer.

It's also interesting that Costco seems to deal with theft far better. Now I have heard of thieves targeting their jewelry cases. I kind of question whether having $20,000 diamonds in a glass case is a wise decision, but then again Costcos are often designed to bottleneck at the exits. And getting out the parking lot can be a real challenge too, although my nearest one is unique in that there's street parking closer to the entrance than most spots in the parking lot.

And Apple Stores layouts are really weird. I know they've been criticized in law enforcement circles for their emphasis on appearance above all else.

 

[dvcgirl67]

My husband owns a business and he’s caught several vehicle break ins in the parking lot. He filed police reports and sent the police the license plate info of the burglars and nothing was done. He’s super frustrated that these people are getting away with these crimes. An employees bike got stolen even though it was locked to the bike rack. The thief bought bolt cutters and cut the lock.

Vehicles are being stolen left and right in my area. It's on our Nexdoor page nearly every day. t's organized thieves who are coming in.....from other areas of my state.....they work in groups of 2 and grab high end late model cars when people leave key fobs in their cars. There are electronic signs all over my area from local police departments to "Lock your car...Take your Fob!!" One was stolen when the owner left his fob inside his car to go inside a convenience store for coffee. Another more brazen one was taken our a garage....it was late at night and the owner was loading up the SUV for a family road trip the next day. The police do nothing when called....they won't chase them. There are too many, and it's risky to get into high speed chases with these guys. Most of these cars are driven to the port in Newark. They're eventually loaded onto ships and apparently are ending up in Eastern Europe.