Pushing The ‘Shoplifting Crime Wave’ Narrative Allowed Cops To Stock Up On LEO Goodies

from the making-the-most-of-a-non-existent-crime-wave dept

For most of a half-decade, law enforcement officials and retail execs have been engaged in a “mass crime spree” duet. Despite this hysteria being debunked several times by rigorous reporting, cops and shops have been manipulating a non-existent shoplifting crime wave for their own benefit for nearly as long.

Every time another smash-and-grab hits TikTok, pearls get clutched, poor business practices get buried, and cops get a few more toys for the cop shop. Crime rates continue to return to their historic lows. Even spikes observed during the COVID pandemic are now being treated like the outliers they are, rather than the starting point of crime rate escalations.

In the retail world, the mass crime spree narrative helped under-performing retailers obscure bad decisions, poor inventory control practices and, in some cases, allow them to close stores they were always planning to close anyway.

In the cop world, the inverse took place. Cops claimed the massive crime wave they also had only witnessed on TikTok proved they needed more money and stuff, even as those requests made it clear they really weren’t doing that great of a job fighting crime in the first place.

The Appeal has amassed a collection of public records related to this so-called shoplifting crime wave. Crime data shows the problem was always overstated. These documents show just how much law enforcement agencies profited from pushing a narrative that increased public fear while simultaneously exposing how useless cops are when it comes to deterring criminal activity.

You’d think a tacit admission of failure would result in more skepticism from purse-string holders when cops show up with their hands out. But the opposite is always true: the worse police are at stopping or solving crime, the more money legislators are willing to throw at them.

Sell fear, buy stuff. That’s how all of this really works.

According to a new analysis by The Appeal, the tactic paid off. California, Oregon, Illinois, and other states are now doling out money to police departments for retail theft investigations. California said it would give police over $242 million between 2023 to 2027. Illinois has awarded almost $15,000,000 over the past three years. And Oregon has allocated $5 million. 

Grant requests from California reviewed by The Appeal reveal the police intend to build out a mass surveillance network to catch shoplifters. 

The proposed dragnet includes automatic license plate readers, facial recognition software, real-time crime centers, and ample overtime funding for cops. Police are sharing access to their tech and data collected with each other, deepening the surveillance across their state. They’re also collaborating with retailers, integrating themselves into stores, and furthering the reach of police surveillance in private spaces. 

Some cop defenders might be saying resources are already stretched too thin to properly handle, um, this apparently brand new crime called “shoplifting.” But if that’s really the case, why is this money being spent on things that have almost nothing to do with tackling the stated problem of retail theft?

As The Appeal’s reporting points out, PDs are spending “retail theft” funds on Stingray devices, police dogs, social media surveillance tech, night vision goggles, “terrorist activity” agreements with DHS fusion centers (claiming there’s a nexus between retail theft and terrorism), and riot shields. Every one of these items was requisitioned with the assertion that these would help curtail retail theft.

Just as happy to push the same narrative are the companies selling these products to cops. Stoking the fires of public fear is so profitable, companies like Axon and Flock Safety are spending their own money lobbying on behalf of police departments, using the same debunked narrative police agencies have used to fill their own coffers with public funds.

Automated license plate reader (ALPR) manufacturers are the clear winners here. Both the private and public sector are willing to buy as many of these devices as these companies can make. Two companies are in the lead, but even those finishing third through last can expect year-over-year gains.

The [lobbying] campaigns have had an impact. In California, roughly 70 percent of the state’s police agencies requested Flock or Motorola’s Vigilant ALPRs in their grant requests.

[…]

In response to the latest shoplifting panic, multiple departments have said they intend to place ALPRs outside store parking lots or directly inside stores. (Some retailers have also bought their own ALPRs.)

This is what privacy activists and others have been raising alarms about for years. Tech that was previously obtained with the promise that it would only be used to track down the most dangerous criminals is now just another option for cops seeking out shoplifters. Property crime has always been grunt work for cops, most of which rarely show any enthusiasm for actually catching thieves. But now that it can be used to get them more stuff, they’ll at least pretend to care about it until the general public finally tires of hearing about it.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Pushing The ‘Shoplifting Crime Wave’ Narrative Allowed Cops To Stock Up On LEO Goodies”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
MrWilson (profile) says:

Meanwhile Presidents Trusk are shoplifting our government and selling it off to junk dealers like copper at an unattended construction site. But yeah, we should definitely be worried about increasingly poor people trying to survive. The next quarterly earnings report is due soon and we need more excuses that don’t involve blaming derp leader’s tariff hijinks for market dips.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

I'm still sore about the Walgrees thing in San Francisco

Walgreens accused the shoplifting epidemic of forcing them to close a branch in SF, when in reality, the pharmacy density of the area was too high anyway, and it was competition from CVS and another nearby Walgreens that pushed the storefront out.

Someone actually did the research and found that in fact, inventory shrinkage had actually been down, but someone had a video of a nonchalant shoplifter who just walked out (and would later be apprehended thanks to descriptions and video)

Anon says:

A Real Problem...

A real problem with most crimes is the Justice System. Any particular crime can take a year or two to get to court. Publicity seekers in office love to flood the police with more money, more bodies, more toys. The problem is, someone arrested for a crime like shoplifiting is out on bail and faces no consequences for a year or more. Compounding their offenses with 6 or 10 more shoplifting or burglary offenses does not net them any more time in jail when they finally get to court – certainly not 6 to 10 times the sentence. So… miimal consequences.

But hiring more prosecutors (and public defenders) or judges or court personnel is not as sexy in the news cycle, so the backlog grows.

IMHO someone caught blantantly commiting theft of shoplifting should be duly processed by the court within a month. That’s not rocket science.

(Another interesting wrinkle I read about – in the UK, the prosecutor cannot offer a deal more than 1/3 off the sentence. I.e. they can’t say “take 6 months or we’ll ask for 5 years”. It would be 6 vs 9 months. As a result, people truly innocent will not have to gamble 6 vs 60 months, while those who know they’ll be found guilty anyway will take the plea and save those 3 months. Less chance of miscarriage by coercion.)

ECA (profile) says:

Viva le Capitalism.

The Ultimate ideal that IF’ you arnt getting money from Every Human, then its a Loss.
And you can/Will write it off one way or Just RAISE prices.
It dont matter what Economics is doing, you Just Do the Most you can to Make MORE MONEY.
Then we look at the Stock exchange and WHY it was created, and Find MANY HOLES in it, as well as the original concept IS GONE.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: FIREARMS

Another AC with stupid with a third-grade opinion:

At least we can totally trust them with exclusive access to firearms though.

Yeah because the CAR THEY DROVE IN is not dangerous.
The AXE in the back seat is not dangerous.

And idiots like you who ignore the 2-Ton car or the axe but shout “gun! gun!” are the saviors.

Just sit down. Shut up If one day you can remove all threats from our society, sign up somewhere with a useful name or a stage name, not “fucking idiot anonymous coward” and say something.

Alexander Hamilton believed in free speech, as I do. Yet he signed his name to what he wrote.

When you have something useful to say, do it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

What’s wrong liberal, upset that someone’s ripping holes in your fantasy that we’d be safer if we only allowed the people who can legally murder you just by saying they though you were scaring them?

Good. You should be. Because instead of wetting yourselves in terror at the very sight of a firearm, you should be asking what happens if your demand for only authorities to have them comes true. Because it could very well happen in the next few years.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

instead of wetting yourselves in terror at the very sight of a firearm

I’d really love to know where you picked this fantasy up. Like, was it Fox News, OAN, or some shitpit like 8kun that told you that every liberal in the U.S. genuinely believes touching even an unloaded gun will instantly vaporize them?

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 WETTING YOURSELF BECAUSE GUN

Because instead of wetting yourselves in terror at the very sight of a firearm…

That’s republican pussies crying at the sight of people defending their rights under the law of the United States.

Nobody else is “wetting” anything at “the sight” of an inanimate object. Except whiny pussy assholes.

Broom. Stick. Ass. Enage.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That’s republican pussies crying at the sight of people defending their rights under the law of the United States.

And the sight of gay people holding hands in public.

And the sight of Black people in general.

And the sight of women who aren’t barefoot, pregnant, and shackled to a kitchen.

And the sight of religious people who aren’t Christians doing their own religious thing in public.

And…well, you get the point.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Dude, what the actual fuck is your problem? You seem to think that “wanting sensible gun control” is the same thing as “get rid of all the icky guns [stereotypical queer handflailing]”, and I don’t know whether you’re trying to stir shit up as a right-wing agitator or if you’re sincerely stupid enough to believe your own bullshit.

I don’t own a gun, I don’t want to own a gun, I think guns should be more regulated than marijuana, and you can still be goddamn sure that I would pick up a gun to defend myself or my loved ones if that ever became necessary. My adherence to the principle of “violence as a last resort” doesn’t make me a pacifist⁠—it makes me someone who knows that violence is often more trouble than it’s worth, which is why avoiding violence (especially lethal violence) until it becomes necessary will always be something for which I advocate.

I imagine that plenty of other liberals feel much the same way: They don’t like guns, but they recognize their unfortunate necessity in modern times, which is why they call for stricter regulations. The ones who are all “take all the guns away” are no better than the kind of people who stockpile guns’n’ammo in preparation for “the Second American Revolution”, in that both groups are dumbass extremists who live in a cloud of all-consuming fear that fucks up their entire lives.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The very suggestion of any kind of physical resistance to people having very real harm done to them RIGHT NOW turns you into a frothing fed-posting twit.

Not for nothing, but you’re being very weird.

When I say that violence needs to be the absolute last resort, you rip into me for being a liberal pussy who’s so afraid of guns that he thinks touching one is going to dust him like he got snapped by Thanos.

When I say that violence in the name of self-defense against masked ICE agents acting like kidnappers/human traffickers is okay, you rip into me for being a fed.

When I ask you for specific, non-violent actions you think people should take to effectively protest the Trump administration after you continually whine about one specific protest multiple times, you duck the question and keep whining about me being a liberal pussy or a fed.

I’m legitimately asking you what you think the best course of action is that isn’t mass murder of anyone who so much as thought of voting for Trump in 2016, 2020, and/or 2024. All you give me is garbage. At this point, I’m inclined to believe that your accusation is a confession and you’re seriously trying to get me to say something you can use to, I’unno, make ICE come knock on my door or some shit. But in case you’re not, I’m going to ask you again: What specific non-violent actions do you believe people should take to effectively protest the Trump administration?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

As long as you are not in Mississippi or Texas you can use infrared LEDs to blind cameras, and a good idea is to use one with a kill switch.

I do that when I go to any park owned by Disney, Cedar Fair, or Six Flags

Becaue of some brawls in those parks they all now have ALPRs in their parking lots. I just turn on the LEDs when I arrive and then turn then off after I leave.

As long as I am behaving abd obeying the rules my plate number is none of their business and blinfing their plate readers does break any laws other than Texas or Mississippi.

A kill switch if a good idea, since I only want to keep the parks from getting my number.

TheDumberHalf says:

my experience.

In my area, Target won’t hire enough workers and security. People just grab what they want and walk out of the store, no hassles. As I drive closer to Seattle, this trend gets worse. Last year I remember there was just a single worker at the registers who couldn’t ring up my beer because she was under aged. In the same store, people were just walking out with armfuls of merch, no cost.

I don’t know where this all fits in, but at least there’s some truth to the shoplifting drama.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...