[compton93]

That's crazy. But coming from someone who wrote a book on retail fraud and worked as a retail fraud analyst for several years... you could have just walked straight out with those items.

Transacting was your way of leaving a calling card for the investigators/analysts to find you... You stole regardless of how you did it.

[conductr]

The visual risk of walking out without paying is much greater than the risk that anyone actually investigates AND tries to track him down for it.

Back when I was a kid it was common to still just have simple price tag stickers on every single item. We’d pull off a cheap sticker and put it on an expensive item. If they noticed, we’d just shrug and say “oh Nevermind then” when they found the right price.

The only problem was most cashiers actually knew all the prices of stuff and paid attention, believe it or not they even knew how to make change back in those days /s. So you couldn’t always get super aggressive.

[JCTheDenthog]

A year or two ago I had a cashier ring up my zucchini as cucumbers because he apparently couldn't tell the difference. Young guy, looked barely 18. I have no idea if he overcharged or undercharged me as a result, but I didn't care enough to point it out because he seemed like the type who would have needed 20 minutes to figure out how to change it (or would have needed to call down a manager for help) and I didn't want to waste any more of my time (or his).

[ButlerianJihad]

I've had dates like that

[fragmede]

Did it get rung up as a drupe?

[forgotaccount3]

> The visual risk of walking out without paying is much greater than the risk that anyone actually investigates AND tries to track him down for it.

So scan everything, then put it in the cart and walk off without putting in the credit card. Again, both are stealing but paying some fake, reduced rate is leaving your calling card at the scene of a crime.

[conductr]

Calling card doesn’t actually mean anything without enforcement. My city police didn’t have time to investigate when someone kicked in my back door and fled once the alarm sounded. I really doubt they give a crap about looking me up and coming to cite me for misdemeanor charges.

Anything that risks an employee might confront you in the store is a greater risk IMO. And, usually they light on the register is green (or a similar indicator) so they do know right then if you don’t pay.

[ssl-3]

Police may not care about stealing fifty dollars worth of steaks one time by entering a PLU of 4011 and declaring them to be bananas. It's hard to prove, and even if everyone takes the time to prove it: Then what? A misdemeanor?

But at some point, they do start to care.

Stealing fifty dollars worth of steaks on 20 different occasions (every couple of weeks, say), with video and transaction evidence of the acts happening over and over again? That's a lot easier to prove, and in many states adds up to a nice juicy felony.

[fc417fc802]

There will be video either way though. They'll either have security footage of you walking out the door without paying or they'll have security footage of you "paying". The only important variables here (AFAICT) are the likelihood of getting noticed coupled with the frequency of the act.

[ssl-3]

They're different risk profiles.

When a thief takes a steak from the cooler and walks out the door, they don't know who that person is. And while they may have video of parts of this, they don't necessarily see enough to prosecute. (Acting like you're stealing a steak but not actually doing it isn't a crime. Shoplifting can be hard to prove; part of that proof means demonstrating that they didn't change their mind and just drop off the steak somewhere else in the store.)

When a thief takes a steak from the cooler and walks it up to self-checkout and pays for it as if it is a bunch of bananas with their credit card, they have identified that person. They have them on video at the self-checkout committing this crime.

It actually doesn't matter much if they leave the store with their bounty or not in this second case. The crime is already done by converting the steak into bananas.

[ComputerGuru]

Police know which side their bread is buttered on. Target is famous for being to get local cops to do exactly what they need post-facto (now prosecutor is another story).

I.E. just because police don’t “waste” time investigating a crime with $1000 of damage to your personal property does not mean they won’t dedicate the time to pursue $200 in losses for the local mega mart.

[fc417fc802]

What Target is famous for is doing their own investigations rather than expecting the police to do the grunt work. They operate such a sophisticated forensics lab that they actually do contract work for LE agencies across the country.

If you funded your own private investigation which unambiguously identified the culprit and demonstrated damages sufficient for a felony I imagine the local police would readily act on your behalf as well.

[conductr]

Breaking and entering into a home is more serious of a crime than $1000 of property damage. But regardless of that, it’s a point just to highlight how little policing resources exists and tells a broader story. At least in my city, cops don’t do anything for minor crimes. On my local Reddit, I see people mentioning that you have to mention that you have a gun in your hand if you ever want them to actually show up. I think our police force has half the personnel they’re supposed to have given our city size. I think this is becoming more common in the US.

There’s plenty of documented cases where local police are the basically henchmen for large corporations, but I’ve seen no evidence of this and believe it’s kind of a fear mongering meme to think they have enough power over them to dictate them to do roundups after the fact. They may however give all the evidence they collect on you to the police with a bow on it and the cops may decide to take it seriously. Where I am, I do not see this happening. The police will have expected the retailer to have protected their inventory. Off duty police officers make a lot of money working private security and they don’t want to disturb that dynamic.

[Marsymars]

> So scan everything, then put it in the cart and walk off without putting in the credit card.

I actually saw someone do this a couple weeks ago.

[istjohn]

I'm absent minded enough to accidentally do this on a bad day. I haven't yet, to my knowledge.

[MisterTea]

> The only problem was most cashiers actually knew all the prices of stuff and paid attention,

Yup. I was in a local super market and saw Tomahawk steaks priced at $4-6 each. It had to be a mistake but I figured I would give it shot and see if they noticed. Cashier looked at the price, did a confused double take and immediately called over the manager. Turns out the decimal point was off by one so my $4.50 tomahawk was really $45. I bought it anyway and it came out great in the oven.

[TeMPOraL]

Did you pay the sticker price or the intended price?

Over here in Poland we have a law that the store must sell you the good for the price it advertised, so in that case they'd be forced to accept $4.50 because of their mistake. May sound too biased in favor of the customer, but before that, the "errors" in price tags were more common.

[mrgoldenbrown]

We have similar rules in the US, but depends on your state. In mine they have to give you the price on at least one of the items but you can't demand they give you 100 of them at the wrong price. Or yes you can demand but they are not required to do so.

[MisterTea]

Intended price. Costly but it was too late as I already had steak on my mind.

[lazide]

In most US states, you have the same rules.

[codethief]

Might have been a marketing strategy. :-)

[bpoyner]

That's _bananas_.

[InexSquirrel]

But definitely not nuts.

[crazygringo]

Seriously. Especially since self-checkout is almost always with a card tied to your identity, not cash.

Depending on the value, the police probably aren't going to show up at your address, but use that card again at the store in the future and you might find the security guard coming over. Or, like many stores, they wait for you to do it repeatedly until it adds up to enough for a felony instead of just a misdemeanor, and then they bring felony charges...

The stores have cameras. Likely someone is well aware those weren't all bananas, and has it on video.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[rationalist]

Any lawyers here?

> wait for you to do it repeatedly until it adds up to enough for a felony instead of just a misdemeanor

Isn't there a concept in the legal system where you have to mitigate damages even if you're the victim? I can't think of the example off the top of my head that Steve Lehto (consumer lawyer on YouTube gave).

I'm guessing people who steal from the stores aren't able to afford a decent lawyer, but I imagine a decent lawyer would ask the Target witness(es), why didn't you stop him after the first theft? Why did you keep letting him steal?

[Aurornis]

> why didn't you stop him after the first theft? Why did you keep letting him steal?

Enforcement goes to the police. Stores can't apprehend thieves. There is a lot of training for store employees to not try to engage the thieves because some can behave erratically and dangerously when they feel like they're caught.

You can tell someone they need to stop and pay for merchandise, but if they choose to keep walking there's nothing the store staff can do but document and report it.

The reason stores wait until it reaches felony level to report it is because police are too busy to try to pursue every small case that happens everywhere. There are fewer crimes that rise to the level of a felony, so they have to focus their efforts on the smaller number of more serious crimes instead of taking every report FIFO style

[rationalist]

Stores can and do trespass people without police involvement.

The stores can also make a police report after the first theft, but the stores are choosing not to.

The stores are choosing not to mitigate their damages, something that the courts frown upon in my limited knowledge.

I understand that might be a civil aspect (mitigation) versus a criminal aspect, but perhaps someone who has been to law school and studied the law, might be able shed some light.

[fc417fc802]

Well they can apprehend thieves but they choose not to because it has the potential to go poorly or result in bad PR. That's a modern trend though - 50 years ago they were happy to have private security do the job.

[rkomorn]

I agree that they're well aware.

I once got stopped at self checkout because I put two vegetables (peppers, IIRC) of different types in the same bag and weighed them together.

They were the same price so it's not like I was trying to pull a fast one one anyone, but "the system" noticed and flagged me for someone to come over.

This was pre-pandemic, and I'm sure they're not less capable now than before.

[garciasn]

IKEA did this to me two years ago. Flagged me as not having paid the right amount. Turns out that they sell fake plants as one cost and the pot you put them in as another; even if they're put together.

It was a difference of like $5 at most on a $400 bill. I suppose 1.25% is enough to pay someone in another country to monitor everything.

[nkohari]

I used to work in a suburban supermarket during high school and college, first as a cashier and then as a frontend supervisor and payroll clerk. We had a security booth where you could watch security cameras, and it was literally never manned. Tapes were changed, but they were there mostly in case someone would try to rob the place. Cashiers routinely rang their own lunch up either as 99 cents or as bananas. No one cared.

Supermarkets actually factor breakage, theft, and spoilage into their books as "shrink", which averages between 2-3% of sales. There's no detective building a case, biding their time to bring down the banana bandit.

Although, modern self-checkouts have cameras on the scanner with ML-powered item detection, and they will alert the attendant if you incorrectly scan something that's sold by weight. (I've done this before on accident, fat-fingering the wrong PLU.)

[dylan604]

> Especially since self-checkout is almost always with a card tied to your identity, not cash.

Pre-paid gift cards would fall into the part where almost always doesn't cover. There's a reason scammers love gift cards

[alwa]

I’d be interested in your book!

I was of the impression that, in our golden age of individualized surveillance, merely interacting with the kiosk was enough to leave a facial-geometry calling card these days.

I feel like I may have heard this from one of those Illinois BIPA class action suits [0], which reliably have a whiff of crackpot to them from a technical perspective. But it surely seems an obvious enough sort of application…

[0] https://www.law360.com/articles/2372764/home-depot-s-self-ch...

[cogogo]

I know people who regularly stole this way. They would usually work in pairs and one would leave a full cart near the exit and the other would walk out confidently. Worst case they figured they would just act the fool and either leave the cart or pay. Irked me that they did this but not enough to rat. I bet these days doing that with any kind of regularity would have you starring on much higher quality film.

[per1]

What's the books name?

[dpoloncsak]

This gives the ability to use the excuse "I didn't know how to use the machine, I thought I used it correctly, nobody ever trained me on this", where as just walking out does not

(Not a lawyer, I'd imagine you know better here than I do)

[Hilliard_Ohiooo]

I think the point was that they COULDN'T have just walked out with them, BUT, by learning then going through the motions of a typical check out this A+++ hacker was able to bypass a normal security layer.