Wal-mart declared a public nuisance in Beech Grove

[foszoe]

For the responders who say it's the people shopping there, not Walmart. What solutions are you embracing?

 

[Rookie]

I don't know, but how is it Walmart's fault? This isn't a bar that has fights every night, nor is it a hotel that offers rooms at an hourly rate. This is a store that employs a lot of people and provides goods to the community. How is it right that people can't control themselves in the store, but Walmart is the one to blame?

I suppose they could raise their prices to avoid the lower income people, but that would hurt their profits. They could hire off duty police officers, but they could still get nailed with common nuisance tickets.

 

[pudly]

For the responders who say it's [STRIKE]the people shopping there, not Walmart[/STRIKE] Walmart, not the people shopping there. What solutions are you embracing?

Or this.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't know if walmart's corporate practices allow for different pricing between stores, but I would imagine they will just keep raising the prices at that store to cover the cost of police runs and other issues. It's a big company hiring a lot of people, I think most of the bluster from the town is just that.

 

[Rookie]

I was wrong.

 

[pudly]

Let's not forget that every person shopping there can be charged with a class b misdemeanor for simply walking in the door.

Please clarify. Do you mean that a simple proclamation by the mayor can turn thousands of people into criminals instantly?

 

[Rookie]

Actually, I'm not sure. I looked up common nuisance, but I can't find public nuisance. I was going to edit that post but you beat me to it.
The offense of visiting a common nuisance as a class B misdemeanor is governed by Ind. Code § 35-48-4-13(a), which provides that:
A person who knowingly or intentionally visits a building, structure, vehicle, or other place that is used by any person to unlawfully use a controlled substance commits visiting a common nuisance, a Class B misdemeanor.

Like I said, that's common nuisance. I can't find anything about public nuisance.

 

[DragonGunner]

This is the same kind of thinking as the anti-gunners use. Blame the gun, or in this case the store, for the crimes committed by people.

Checkmate.


Sounds like cops and the mayor tired of doing their job so just blame walmart……maybe they should shut down the city of Indy, Chicago……so much crime, so little time.

 

[jsharmon7]

Sounds like Walmart is going to have to hire off-duty LEO to handle situations. I don't know how else Walmart can address the issue. It's not their fault people can't behave in their store, yet Beech Grove can't keep dedicating so many resources to one location.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Let's not place such blanket statements on the area. Not even a mile southeast of that Wal-Mart... nice neighborhoods, good people, not "riff-raff". So, maybe they're coming down from inside the crime donut.

 

[oldpink]

IOW, because Beech Grove seems to have a large enough segment of its population who use a prominent local store as their favorite place to steal from, it's actually the fault of said store and not that of the thieves?
Stop the world, I wanna get off.

 

[HoughMade]

If I were the mayor, I would be ashamed at the amount of crime in my town and wonder how I could help the businesses protect themselves....but what do I know?

 

[foszoe]

Walmart isn't generating the runs, the morons who shop (or hang out or whatever...) there are.

Walmart is generating the runs. The "morons" aren't placing the calls.

 

[oldpink]

Walmart is generating the runs. The "morons" aren't placing the calls.

The morons are the cause of the calls.
Do you make it a habit to blame crime victims when harmed by their aggressors in other ways?

 

[Rookie]

How dare they try to protect their property. The nerve of some people.

 

[foszoe]

To old pink, no.

So it appears you and rookie believe walmart has done all that is necessary to prevent being a victim and is solely reliant on calling the police?

 

[pudly]

For the responders who say it's the people shopping there, not Walmart. What solutions are you embracing?

Walmart is generating the runs. The "morons" aren't placing the calls.

Well, you challenged others to come up with solutions. What do you suggest?

So it appears you and rookie believe walmart has done all that is necessary to prevent being a victim and is solely reliant on calling the police?

You realize that statement is self-contradictory, right?

 

[HoughMade]

I think anyone who "hasn't done all they can do to prevent being a victim" should be denied police response or charged for it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Right, people cause the problems. People cause bar fights, too, but if police get called to the same bar for fights every night it gets shut down as a nuisance business. If it's simply the people, why does Target or Meijer not generate nearly the same run load? It's not THAT Wal-mart, it's ANY Wal-mart. It's not because it's by the interstate. The one at 7245 US 31 S generated several runs a day, often a shift, as well.

Loss Prevention can use force to effect an arrest. Shoplift at Menard's and run or fight and see what happens. Try to pick a day the big dude in overalls is working. Loss Prevention is already making the arrest. They are just turning their prisoner over to the police. The LP has to send in a probable cause to the Prosecutor's Office for the theft, or at least they did. I'm not sure how it works now with the new IC codes.

So if Wal-mart creates over 60 runs a month, and Target, Meijer, Lowe's, Home Depot, Menard's, etc. combined don't reach that level, how is it not something Wal-mart is doing?

Now people will try to make this binary and oversimplify. Yes, ultimately it is the thieves who are responsible. That does not mean the business has to create an environment that invites it and allows it to flourish. A community if Florida had a rash of convenience store robberies and a few clerks were shot. They passed ordinances concerning lighting, unobstructed views into the business (posters on the glass could not block the view of the clerk from the street any longer, etc.), and counters that were not easy to jump over. Robberies plummeted. The stores weren't responsible for the robberies, but by being dimly lit, having low counters, blocking the view into the business from the street, etc. they created a great environment for robbers. Not only did c-store robberies go down, all robberies went down. It was harder to be a professional robber, and that drove crime down across the board.

Companies tend to look at it solely based on the bottom line. The pharmacies are a great example. They make it easy to rob their stores, and the loss doesn't cost them what retrofitting stores and decent security would. They don't care they are funding organized crime rings, contributing to overdoses, etc. That's not their problem. Their problem is how much profit each store generates.

As people are saying it IS the government's job to stop thieves, robbers, etc. That is NOT limited to simply responding to each incident. Target hardening and creating a less appealing environment for criminals so the act is prevented before it ever occurs is preferable to allowing people to be victimized over and over and just keep locking people up. If that includes forcing nuisance businesses to either figure out how to not be a haven for criminal activity or to pay more for their disproportionate requirements for government services, I think that's the right path.

 

[Rookie]

I've never been to that particular store, but I'll assume they're like every other store and have loss prevention and EAS systems at the doors. If so, they're doing what every other store does. They identify a shop lifter, attempt to detain them, and then call the police and ask them to do their job. I'm not sure what more they can be expected to do.