What you're saying is that because of Walmart's business practices, that they somehow deserve to be robbed on a consistent basis. That's not how things work, this isn't an eye for an eye civilization.
No, that's the strawman point you're making then knocking down. What I said is that Walmart was facing high amounts of crime against it and its customers. It had two ways to respond to that:
1. A set of practices that cost some money but reduce amount of damagd to it and its customers. This is the baseline response it originally had plus what many competitors are currently doing.
2. Get rid of all of those, let crime increase dramatically, pocket the money, and foot the expenses to taxpayers.
I think eliminating 1 for 2 is unethical and damaging to locals, including customers victims of resulting crime. I support allowing them to do it but encourage police departments to make it cost them as in the article. That they did a 180 after that shows this is entirely motivated by profit.
1. A set of practices that cost some money but reduce amount of damagd to it and its customers. This is the baseline response it originally had plus what many competitors are currently doing.
2. Get rid of all of those, let crime increase dramatically, pocket the money, and foot the expenses to taxpayers.
I think eliminating 1 for 2 is unethical and damaging to locals, including customers victims of resulting crime. I support allowing them to do it but encourage police departments to make it cost them as in the article. That they did a 180 after that shows this is entirely motivated by profit.