Shoplifting vs. Extortion

Running under the assumption that the shopkeeper has correctly identified a shoplifter*, is it really wrong for them to say "Hey, I know you were shoplifting. Give me $400 cash, or I'll prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law."? With either part of that equation (settling out of court or calling the cops and pressing charges) is perfectly legal and - most of us would likely agree, reasonable, right?

Should the shopkeeper get to be the sole person to make the decision between paying up or taking the heat?

If the party is guilty, then, of course, everyone would win with an out-of-court settlement. The police aren't bothered with a relatively minor crime, the shopkeeper is saved the time, trouble and costs associated with court and prosecution and the shoplifter likely gets a better deal, saves the time and trouble *and* saves face.

*Again, assuming the party is guilty. If they're not guilty, then there should be no qualms with the shopkeeper calling the cops and letting them investigate.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Running under the assumption that the shopkeeper has correctly identified a shoplifter*
...
*Again, assuming the party is guilty. If they're not guilty, then there should be no qualms with the shopkeeper calling the cops and letting them investigate.[/QUOTE]

Talk about circular logic.
 
[quote name='camoor']Talk about circular logic.[/QUOTE]

What?

If the person is guilty and they've been caught, so be it.
If they're innocent, they can leave, tell the shopkeeper to call the cops or press charges for false imprisonment.

Someone on Consumerist posted this:
By the way, for anyone who doubts that that is extortion, here's the definition from the New York State penal code 155.05 2(c):
A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:
(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or
(ii) Cause damage to property; or
(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
[remaining sections cut for space]
Click to expand...

So... pretty much sounds like the legal definition of extortion (by New York State Law, of course) - someone does something bad, someone with power says "give me money, or shit's gonna hit the fan." The guilt (or lack thereof) of the individual has no bearing on the situation...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Running under the assumption that the shopkeeper has correctly identified a shoplifter*, is it really wrong for them to say "Hey, I know you were shoplifting. Give me $400 cash, or I'll prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law."? With either part of that equation (settling out of court or calling the cops and pressing charges) is perfectly legal and - most of us would likely agree, reasonable, right?
[/QUOTE]

No.
 
Extortion.
Not sure how anyone can say "give me money or we'll tell" isn't extortion.
If it were "pay for the goods you stole or we'll tell" I'd be a little more for it.
 
Extortion.

If this happened to me, I would burn the grocery store down with the owners tied up in the back. If they didn't open the safe for me before I burnt the place down, I would promise to kidnap their loved ones (kids, pets) and drown them in the Hudson River.
 
The store can request its property back to be made whole again.

With the fine, the store is inflicting a punishment on another party without prior consent of the to-be-punished party.
 
[quote name='Stoic Person Eater']Extortion.

If this happened to me, I would burn the grocery store down with the owners tied up in the back. If they didn't open the safe for me before I burnt the place down, I would promise to kidnap their loved ones (kids, pets) and drown them in the Hudson River.[/QUOTE]

stop playing ROCKSTAR videogames kiddo.
 
[quote name='Stoic Person Eater']Extortion.

If this happened to me, I would burn the grocery store down with the owners tied up in the back. If they didn't open the safe for me before I burnt the place down, I would promise to kidnap their loved ones (kids, pets) and drown them in the Hudson River.[/QUOTE]

Grocery stores aren't as profitable as they once were. Now, the safe holds more debit card receipts than cash.
 
If by him doing that decreases the amount of people stealing from him them I am for it.

Besides, if he knows that person stole from him it isnt like he is stealing from them. He says give me money or I call the cops and right then that person has a choice to pay or not pay. If shopkeeper has their ass on camera or witnesses then I would pay to avoid getting my ass in trouble with the cops.

Its not like he is holding that person against their will or forcing them to pay him money. he gave them a choice. Personally as being a business owner before and working retail I can appreciate his stance of not wanting to put up with more bullshit.
 
Geez Stoic, just take a shit in the produce section like the rest of us. If you do it near the plantains, they might not even know for a few hours. That's what we call guerrilla tactics. Or gorilla tactics, given all the present elements.
 
[quote name='gargus']If by him doing that decreases the amount of people stealing from him them I am for it.

Besides, if he knows that person stole from him it isnt like he is stealing from them. He says give me money or I call the cops and right then that person has a choice to pay or not pay. If shopkeeper has their ass on camera or witnesses then I would pay to avoid getting my ass in trouble with the cops.

Its not like he is holding that person against their will or forcing them to pay him money. he gave them a choice. Personally as being a business owner before and working retail I can appreciate his stance of not wanting to put up with more bullshit.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure extortion is always a choice.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

With the fine, the store is inflicting a punishment on another party without prior consent of the to-be-punished party.[/QUOTE]

I permit you to like this!

images
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']stop playing ROCKSTAR videogames kiddo.[/QUOTE]
I'm not your kiddo.

Before ROCKSTAR, before video games, there was something called the Mob, which used to practice similar practices when being extorted. Fitting that someone as dimwitted as yourself chalked it up to videogames, but that's what you get on a videogame website, I suppose.
 
[quote name='Stoic Person Eater']I'm not your kiddo.

Before ROCKSTAR, before video games, there was something called the Mob, which used to practice similar practices when being extorted. Fitting that someone as dimwitted as yourself chalked it up to videogames, but that's what you get on a videogame website, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

stop watching the sopranos kiddo
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The store can request its property back to be made whole again.

With the fine, the store is inflicting a punishment on another party without prior consent of the to-be-punished party.[/QUOTE]

Does simply getting the property - or the value of the property - back make one "whole" again? What about the shopkeeper's time away from the register/customers?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Does simply getting the property - or the value of the property - back make one "whole" again? What about the shopkeeper's time away from the register/customers?[/QUOTE]

what about the fact that it's not the shoplifters first time at the rodeo. Most of the time they're not a first time offender.

Then you have to take into consideration that in some areas of this country the business is out more than the shoplifter.

One place I worked when we caught a shoplifter. You'd call the cops. They'd show up but didn't have juridiction. So they'd talk to the shoplifter, get their ID, take down what happened, and let 'em walk. We'd then have to drive 35 miles one way to file an affidavit. Then go back to court and spend 2-5 hours when half the time the shoplifter wouldn't even show up and all they'd get is they'd have to pay court costs and a very small restitution.

So in other words the store would be out a shit ton of money and time for nothing. So yes we did get to where we'd ask people how much they had on 'em and take a small bit more than the cost. Not 400 bucks but 5-10 if they had it. If they were nice enough to come clean and not fight and be mostly respectable we'd just ban them from the store and not involve anyone. It just wasn't worth it to prosecute.

Now I know that a lot of areas aren't like this but it's what we faced.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']what about the fact that it's not the shoplifters first time at the rodeo. Most of the time they're not a first time offender.[/QUOTE]

While that is something to consider, it's speculation at best. I looking at situations where the shopkeeper is 100% certain someone has taken an item. To assume they've done it before isn't something the decision to punish them (legally or otherwise) should be based on.

But your post just goes more toward what I'm saying - there's so much more expense than the cost of the good involved when you've got a shoplifter. So, anything that saves the shopkeeper time/money, the shoplifter time/money and the taxpayers money is a win-win-win situation, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While that is something to consider, it's speculation at best. I looking at situations where the shopkeeper is 100% certain someone has taken an item. To assume they've done it before isn't something the decision to punish them (legally or otherwise) should be based on.

But your post just goes more toward what I'm saying - there's so much more expense than the cost of the good involved when you've got a shoplifter. So, anything that saves the shopkeeper time/money, the shoplifter time/money and the taxpayers money is a win-win-win situation, right?[/QUOTE]

Corporations can't impose punishments on customers until they gain sovereignty.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Corporations can't impose punishments on customers until they gain sovereignty.[/QUOTE]

Out of court settlement. Perfectly legal, so long as both parties agree. And, in most cases, one party is going to be "punished", correct?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Out of court settlement. Perfectly legal, so long as both parties agree. And, in most cases, one party is going to be "punished", correct?[/QUOTE]

Not when it involves extortion.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not when it involves extortion.[/QUOTE]

So, what's the difference between someone saying "Pay me $X or I'm going to take you to court." and "Pay me $X or I'm going to press charges." Semantics?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not when it involves extortion.[/QUOTE]

It was one thing if it was "only" twenty of fifty bucks, or even a formula like x times the value of what was stolen but a few hundred bucks?

Extortion.
 
[quote name='Strell']Geez Stoic, just take a shit in the produce section like the rest of us. If you do it near the plantains, they might not even know for a few hours. That's what we call guerrilla tactics. Or gorilla tactics, given all the present elements.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, what's the difference between someone saying "Pay me $X or I'm going to take you to court." and "Pay me $X or I'm going to press charges." Semantics?[/QUOTE]

Civil versus criminal.
 
So, to take an example from the link I posted earlier, "Give me $500 or I'm going to tell your wife about your affair." - extortion?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, to take an example from the link I posted earlier, "Give me $500 or I'm going to tell your wife about your affair." - extortion?[/QUOTE]

Nope. That is blackmail.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Nope. That is blackmail.[/QUOTE]

Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.
Click to expand...

Although blackmail is generally synonymous with Extortion, some states distinguish the offenses by requiring that the former be in writing.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's say you're speeding. Going 75 in a 55. Cop pulls you over. Explains that 20 miles over the speed limit is a larger fine. Gives you two options - one, he'll write the ticket for 75MPH - 20 miles over - and you can pay the larger fines. Two, he'll write the ticket for 74MPH - 19 miles over, thus a smaller fine. However, to get the lower ticket, you have to buy a ticket to the Annual State Police Dinner - where the proceeds go towards helping families of those injured or killed by reckless drivers. The price of the dinner and the 74MPH ticket combined is less than that of the higher ticket. The money is for a good cause and you don't even actually have to show up.

Still extortion?
 
Where's the part where we agree to whatever it is you want us to agree to, and then you roundly use this as a way to further attack Obama?

'Cuz I'm getting the feeling that you expected us all to go X when we went Y and now you can't make whatever terrible analogy you had brewing, ready to spring on us like a Yu-Gi-Oh trap card.
 
[quote name='Strell']'Cuz I'm getting the feeling that you expected us all to go X when we went Y and now you can't make whatever terrible analogy you had brewing, ready to spring on us like a Yu-Gi-Oh trap card.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I pretty much expected everyone to say this is extortion - because, quite soundly, that's what it is.

What makes you think this has anything to do with Obama? Has he been extorting anyone lately that you know of?
 
I was waiting for you to form a bad comparison, being sure to half show your math to allow it to be as vague as possible.

I have this image in my head of a kid playing with connect-the-dots books and choosing to draw a house on each one, and then loudly complaining that "these are all the same."
 
[quote name='Strell']I was waiting for you to form a bad comparison, being sure to half show your math to allow it to be as vague as possible.

I have this image in my head of a kid playing with connect-the-dots books and choosing to draw a house on each one, and then loudly complaining that "these are all the same."[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that was awesome.
 
That's the only explanation for you pushing - repeatedly - some sort of half assed "But what if THIS" a half dozen times in this thread. You don't seem happy with anyone's answer and now you're poking and prodding around like a blind mosquito.

So, you know. Keep up with the stock Starmen you're going to pull from now on.
 
[quote name='Strell']That's the only explanation for you pushing - repeatedly - some sort of half assed "But what if THIS" a half dozen times in this thread. You don't seem happy with anyone's answer and now you're poking and prodding around like a blind mosquito.

So, you know. Keep up with the stock Starmen you're going to pull from now on.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that was awesome.
 
[quote name='Strell']That's the only explanation for you pushing - repeatedly - some sort of half assed "But what if THIS" a half dozen times in this thread. You don't seem happy with anyone's answer and now you're poking and prodding around like a blind mosquito.

So, you know. Keep up with the stock Starmen you're going to pull from now on.[/QUOTE]

He does hit those hypotheticals hard.

It's like a handyman who only uses a hammer. Sometimes you need something other then a hammer!
 
[quote name='camoor']He does hit those hypotheticals hard.

It's like a handyman who only uses a hammer. Sometimes you need something other then a hammer![/QUOTE]

Like extortion?
 
I don't get what all the fuss is about all of a sudden.

We all pretty much agree "Give me money or I'll make bad stuff happen to you" is extortion.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't get what all the fuss is about all of a sudden.

We all pretty much agree "Give me money or I'll make bad stuff happen to you" is extortion.[/QUOTE]

I take your statement as a felony death threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top