[yummyfajitas]

I think that we should crack down on walmart and other large companies who service poor people, blacks, and other population groups that disproportionately commit crime. We should force walmart to behave more like target, catering towards higher income people, with higher prices and better service. And if poor people need to pay higher prices at a non-centralized location, that's the breaks.

Similarly, walmart should be prevented from doing things like allowing the homeless to camp in the parking lots. Target is the pioneer here - they force the homeless to illegally park on the streets where the cops can harass them until they leave town.

In short, rather than having all the crime in one spot, we can spread it around the community! This won't help things, but at least we won't have a single unsympathetic scapegoat to blame.

(Also blame walmart when it does try and stop crime and the inevitable results occur, namely criminals being hurt/killed as part of the law enforcement process.)

I can't think of a better illustration of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics than this article. Poor people steal and hurt people but we can't blame them. Walmart is nearby so blame Walmart!

https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

[maxerickson]

Yes, it's obviously a binary issue and there is no possibility whatsoever that Walmart could do things to prevent crime that have a lower net cost for society than calling the police.

[yummyfajitas]

What exactly should walmart do?

Run a private police force that inevitably harms criminals during the law enforcement process? (The article criticizes them for doing this.)

Maybe walmart can run it's own on-site jail that way the cops only need to come once/day? I'm sure a private walmart run jail won't attract the same criticism, particularly when the inevitable bad things happen in it.

Or maybe they can hire more security guards to follow around suspicious people in the store. I'm sure that will help stop the criticism, even if the demographics of suspicious people don't correspond to population demographics.

From what I can tell, the problem isn't walmart but the people who shop there. But this is obviously a politically unacceptable conclusion, so walmart makes a convenient scapegoat. And they'll remain one no matter what they do.

[maxerickson]

Yes, the criminality is the problem.

But say having someone present at an entrance for much of the day clearly cuts the number of shoplifting incidents. It's pretty reasonable for the police and town to push for that staffing if it is less costly than handling the displaced incidents.

[Domenic_S]

You know what Target does? They help out law enforcement and even have a top-rated crime lab: https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-c...

A friend of mine was a Target store manager. According to him, Target had a more symbiotic relationship with LE, vs Walmart which just seems to suck resources dry.

[marknutter]

It is simply not Walmart's job to prevent crime. All businesses should be allowed to operate under the assumption that in return for their tax dollars crime prevention will be handled by the state.

[massysett]

Police do more crime cleanup than crime prevention.

I expect the police to protect my home but I know they can only do so much. If I leave the key in my front door and people come in and steal my stuff, that's still stealing. But the police would be right to complain if I routinely leave my key in the door.

[marknutter]

Of course it's my fault if I leave my key in my door and I get stolen from, but I am in no way obligated to protect myself from criminals, just like women are in no way obligated to dress conservatively in order to avoid rape or sexual abuse.

[massysett]

So are you suggesting that you should be able to leave your key in the door as much as you want beacuse you're under no obligation to protect yourself?

The argument here is that perhaps Walmart, as a large retailer, should take security measures, just as a homeowner should not leave his key in the lock. Yes they don't have to have security, but then it may not be reasonable for them to demand immediate police response, just like I might not expect the cops to help me every day if I leave my key in the lock.

The clause you added about rape is just wrong in so many ways.

[marknutter]

> So are you suggesting that you should be able to leave your key in the door as much as you want beacuse you're under no obligation to protect yourself?

Yes, and in fact am legally able to.

> The argument here is that perhaps Walmart, as a large retailer, should take security measures, just as a homeowner should not leave his key in the lock. Yes they don't have to have security, but then it may not be reasonable for them to demand immediate police response, just like I might not expect the cops to help me every day if I leave my key in the lock.

But that's not how criminal justice works. It's not to protect and serve those who are doing everything to protect and serve themselves, it's to protect and serve everyone regardless of their ability or even willingness to protect themselves. Would you blame the victim of a break-in for not owning a gun?

> The clause you added about rape is just wrong in so many ways.

Indulge me - name one way in which it's wrong.

[maxerickson]

Would you expect the state to station a police officer at your vegetable stand to make sure that people follow the honor system?

What's the difference between that and Walmart under-staffing?

[marknutter]

No, and Walmart isn't expecting the police to station themselves at their stores. I would, however, expect the police to do their job and arrest repeat offenders so they can be locked up and potentially reformed.

[tomp]

I like this comment, but it's a bit hard to tell where the sarcasm stops...

[bluehazed]

Judging by this person's comment history, it doesn't start.

[tomp]

I generally like and often agree with yummifajita's comments.