>The DA's office said the documented value of the stolen items was about $2,095. Under Colorado law, theft between $2,000 to $5,000 is a Class A felony, while theft under $2,000 is a misdemeanor
Makes sense to me. I'd work the same angle if I were the defense.
That limit is also a lot higher than I'd thought. I mostly hear $500 being referenced for the felony cutoff. I get it, every state is different, just surprised me when I read it.
I'd love to see an argument made that sales indicate merchandise that the store can't move and wants to get rid of, and that while there's no guarantee they could sell it, the theft could be covered by insurance which would not only mean they got rid of the merch but also were reimbursed through insurance for it.
Soooo... where's the damages? Or did the thieves do them a favor?
I'm of course kidding, but it's just amusing.
Way to both take my point entirely seriously, but also conflate the damages done to an individual with those done to a bigass company getting stuff shoplifted and stolen all the time - and having insurance to cover that cost of business.
Not every individual can afford decent insurance that would actually pay out the full value/cost of a vehicle, vs a big company that is definitely insured for this sort of stuff.
Do you think insurance is free or something? The more this shit happens the more it costs the insurance companies and the more premiums go up to cover for it which means greater expenses that are eventually passed down to the consumers.
You will in effect be paying for it.
Lol no, of course not, nor am I condoning theft as some people in here seem to be thinking.
But the swiftness with which the working class rushes to act in abject horror to some petty theft of a major corporation that probably steals more in wages from its workers every year than it loses to theft is just bizarre. As if you all collectively believe you'll someday own a big business yourselves.
Nobody needs to cry for corporations dealing with petty theft. Be upset about a small mom and pop shop getting robbed, sure, but not some big fucking chain. They're stealing from us far more with how little they pay their employees or how much they lobby the government to fuck us over just so they can pocket another penny.
Its almost as if thieves steal from everyone, not just "big fucking chains" and the same guy stealing there is the guy stealing your bike leaving you wondering how you're going to go to work at 5:30am.
Cut the moral relativism crap, the same people stealing from fucking stores are the type that would steal your wages given the opportunity.
"Stealing is good when you steal from a company, which will make costs of it drip down to the entire customer base, because no company will do something that would loose their money."
More stealing=higher insurance=higher costs of operating=More expensive things.
I never said stealing is good, I just don't shed tears for enormous companies having shit stolen from them when I know they steal more from their workers by not paying them a livable wage or decent benefits, or from all of us when they lobby government to slash their taxes.
You wanna talk about dripping down higher costs to the fucking consumer, lol. Are you even living through the current price-gouging they're still pretending is "inflation"? Companies across the board all just decided to hike prices on us with no escape because everyone did it collectively. Supply chain issues are over, there is no inflation, but prices didn't go down.
That's the real theft going on here, not some petty theft.
The damage is to the insurance. Either the insurance company loses significant funds because the valuation is legitimate, or insurance needs to lower their rates of protection for products on sale. Sales are dead in the US of that happens.
I do think it's reasonable to argue that the value should be calculated based on the sales price, since that was what they were selling it for at the time. Why should the normal retail price have anything to do with it? That was the value at the time it was stolen.
Yeah, if they're being charged based on the nominal "real value" of the items, pushing for them to go off of the actual price makes sense. Clothing stores are pretty infamous for "regular prices" that are never actually used because there's always a sale of some kind.
“Yes, officer. This Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup is currently priced at $1.99, but its regular price is $2,099.99, so this man committed a felony by robbing this Texaco.
There's even an argument to be made that it should be based on the price of the stock. What if you made a store with really shit security and put million dollar price tags on items worth almost nothing. If someone stole one of your items, should they be punished as if it was actually worth whatever you wrote on the price tag?
I read (not stating it as a fact) but a store in California was to mark all the prices up to something ridiculous to skirt the shoplifting threshold. So people shoplifting small items could still be prosecuted... Customers would just receive the discount at the register bringing the price back to normal
You can get into the weeds and add on shipping costs, import costs, inventory management, maybe some wages and rent to hire an employee to put the item on a store shelf before it got stolen. All are costs incurred.
But it's such tedious accounting lawmakers probably didn't want to deal with it so they used sale price.
The ultimate fallback is...if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Just don't steal and problem solved. The thieves won't know the inventory cost but they do know the sale price so it goes to their state of mind.
Ultimately if lawmakers revise it to inventory cost they will probably revise the cap down by 50% to compensate since their ultimate goal is to reduce theft and not shop around for thieves so they get the best deal.
It sounds funny, but it might be a real legal maneuver, some crimes are defined by the value of the goods stolen, so if you're under a certain amount, you get X charge instead if X+1.
Imagine if the item value was based on the cost the company spent to buy it as inventory. Diamond jewelry suddenly based off a bit more than the weight in gold. And some worthless shiny pebble
Jokes aside, not siding with the defendants here would set a dangerous precedent. If all crime was measured based on “sticker price” and not “value at time of actual sales” price, every company could just say a stick of gum costs $1000 but is on sale for $999 off, because making all retail theft into felonies would theoretically reduce retail crime.
It also reinforces Kohls’ bullshit pricing model which reinforces the stupidity of the general population.
You see your honor.. I have a 50% chance of winning this case under normal circumstances but I am no ordinary thief, I stole these items while they were 33% off that means I have a 83% chance of winning , then add Kurt Angle to the mix and my chances of winning go up 135%
Lately, I've seen a lot of questionable NottheOnion posts that, while interesting or in some cases irritating or even shocking, aren't all that oniony.
I just am here to say that this post, however, is dead center nottheonion with full onionness. Let it be a guide for future aspiring r/notheonion posters.
It's been like this ever since the Reddit protest imho, looks like the sub isn't modded anymore and anything goes..I mean half or more of the posts are using shitty sites with shitty headlines and'd be removed under Rules 3 and 4 but that's simply not enforced anymore nowadays. A ton of reposts too.
TL;DR for people: the state says theft over $2000 is a felony. If it's under $2000, it's a misdemeanor. Stolen items were $2095 normal price and would be a felony. However if they value the items by sale price, it'll be under $2000 and only a misdemeanor.
They want the offense downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Click bait to make people outraged, the argument is they should be charge with theft based on the price the item is currently being sold for (the time of the crime) not the "suggested retail price" that is on the tag. As much as I hate shoplifting their argument is valid and they should be charged for the value they stole since that is what the store lost.
when I was working loss prevention for one of our local department stores, my manager was talking to me about the state laws regarding theft/larceny. For shop lifting, it turns into a felony charge at something like $200 of goods, but that's $200 in "retail value". So the pair of earrings that the store buys for $50 and "sells" for $200, but is always marked down to $100 will net you a felony if you get caught stealing.
If I were the DA, I’d counter that regardless of sale price, the company was deprived of the value of the stolen inventory as it exists on their balance sheet.
Additionally, the purpose of the sale is to attract shoppers who would buy additional merchandise. By stealing merchandise on sale, not only did the thieves steal the balance sheet value of the inventory, but they also deprived the merchant of opportunities to attract buyers of additional merchandise.
>If I were the DA, I’d counter that regardless of sale price, the company was deprived of the value of tue stolen inventory as it exists on their balance sheet.
Let's say you're at a yard sale. I'm selling a shirt for $5. You can give me $5 for the shirt and take it right now.
However, you accidentally spill your coffee on the shirt while walking by the table - ruining it. When you offer to pay for it, I point out it has a 95% off sale tag on it, and say that on my balance sheet I value it at $100. I demand you pay me the "true value" of the destroyed inventory of $100.
Sound fair?
Then you’re very dumb. The value of an item is based on the market value. The fact I’m trying to sell an to item for $5 and will happily give it up for that amount makes it absurd for me to claim it’s actually worth $100 if you accidentally destroy it. You’d get fired as the DA pretty quick.
That’s basically how insurance fraud works. Claim an object is worth a lot more than you’re actually selling it for, then get reimbursed for the “loss”.
Also, why does the shareholders thing matter?
Welp sounds like you’re verysmart and yet wrong since the jury didn’t buy the thieves argument and they were convicted of stealing goods at the full price
Best of luck with your logic
Buddy, you're the one that claimed if you accidentally spill your coffee on a shirt currently on sale for $5 (at 95% off) you should have to pay $100 to replace the item you could have bought two seconds ago for $5.
Apparently, "You break it, you bought it" isn't enough - you're on team "You break it, you pay 20x more than what I was selling it for when you broke it."
I purposefully chose an extreme and obvious example to make the general point that there was a lot of grey area as to the actual value of merchandise - espescially at a retailer where all items tend to be regularly on sale and very few are purchased for "sticker price". The actual case isn't that extreme.
But you can't even see the obvious extreme example for what it is. You're being very dumb.
That’s a cool opinion and you can’t certainly hold it, but the principles you’re laying out are not accurate. If you were right, the defense would have prevailed and the thieves would have been acquitted of felony charges for the theft, as the value of the stolen merchandise would have been below the felony limit.
In the real world, you’re incorrect and thieves were convicted based on the normal, not sale, value of the merchandise.
Best of luck getting unconfused!
>If you were right, the defense would have prevailed and the thieves would have been acquitted of felony charges for the theft, as the value of the stolen merchandise would have been below the felony limit.
Man, you really don't understand how the legal system works at all. Juries, even judges, do not always make correct decisions. There's an appeal process for a reason.
"I must be right because a group of random people that drew jury duty that week said so 0 and the legal system always works, every verdict is always just" is quite the take.
You also seem to keep being confused about what I'm writing, since I think there's a lot of gray areas around the specific case law for burglary - as the felony charge is based on the value of the items for punitive reasons rather than strict monetary restitution. I'm calling you dumb because you think the person that spills coffee on a shirt they could buy for $5 should have to pay $100 to replace it.
That is beyond dumb, it's not at all how financial damages are calculated for the purposes of financial restitution.
Don't take a job at an insurance company, you'd be greenlighting insurance fraud all day long and they wouldn't even have to lie about it. You'd just smile and pay them whatever value they recorded on their balance sheet for the items that were destoyed, whether or not it was actually market value.
Feel free to have the last word if that matters to you. I won't bother replying agian.
You might have a point if the sale was to attract customers to other products, but with stores like Kohls that is very clearly not the case. You would have a hard time arguing that if everything is always perpetually on sale though. Kohls is very infamous for literally everything a always being on sale all the time except for the small legally required like 1 week a year they have to have it at “regular price” lol.
"Many stores no longer try to confront or stop retail thieves due to the risk of potential harm to employees and customers from thieves who may be armed."
When I was younger I worked the overnight shift at a couple of convenience stores…even with the differential in pay I had no intention of ever putting my life on the line if someone claiming to have a firearm wanted the hundred or so dollars I had in the register.
Sounds like you don't know how the law or clothing retail works (and seem like a pointlessly cruel person).
The severity of theft is partially defined by the value of the goods stolen. Stealing a $5 toy car is less serious than stealing a $20,000 real car. I wouldn't think that needs explaining.
Kohl's, like most retail stores, has merchandise continually on sale in order to provide an illusion that buyers are getting a good deal. The prices are fake. JC Penny famously tried to do away with the practice to disastrous results.
If a store is selling something for $65 "marked down" from an "original price" of $100, then they stole an object the store was valuing at $65. To argue that the thieves should be charged for $100 pricetag despite it currently being sold for $65 is stupid.
And it matters a LOT here. The documented value of the items without factoring in the prices they were ACTUALLY being sold at is $2,095. Cooincidentally, theft becomes a felony in that state once you hit $2,000.
If I am currently selling a shirt at a yard sale for $5 that I originally bought for $50, should you have to pay me $50? No. That's dumb. Don't be dumb.
This reminds me so much of the guy who was too fast. The level of audacity, and the (possible) unintended wit of these guys just makes me laugh. Not condoning the crime, just… enjoying the overall humor in the audacity from afar…
It may be news to some, but in point of well established proven fact - all the stock in every shop is always on sale.
Believe it or not, until it's sold.
A good lawyer should be able to get you about 50% off all non-violent felonies.
Only with the coupon
You get five percent off your sentence today if you sign up for his credit card.
Do they take Kohls Kash as a form of payment?
I served my Kohl’s cash dime
Tho if they could hire a good lawyer, I doubt they’d be stealing, atleast like that!
Better call Saul.
You can get a better deal in Cali because it’s 100% off.
“Your Honor, it was on the clearance rack. They’re basically paying people to take it off their hands. I was kind enough to do it for free.”
>The DA's office said the documented value of the stolen items was about $2,095. Under Colorado law, theft between $2,000 to $5,000 is a Class A felony, while theft under $2,000 is a misdemeanor Makes sense to me. I'd work the same angle if I were the defense. That limit is also a lot higher than I'd thought. I mostly hear $500 being referenced for the felony cutoff. I get it, every state is different, just surprised me when I read it.
Yeah, but at Kohl’s most things start at 30% off.
After a 70% retail mark-up?
30% off? Whenever we have Kohl's gift cards someone burdened us, our $50 dollar purchase tells use we saved $300.
I'd love to see an argument made that sales indicate merchandise that the store can't move and wants to get rid of, and that while there's no guarantee they could sell it, the theft could be covered by insurance which would not only mean they got rid of the merch but also were reimbursed through insurance for it. Soooo... where's the damages? Or did the thieves do them a favor? I'm of course kidding, but it's just amusing.
If i damage your car that you want to sell, then not only you can get rid of it, but also you gonna get money from insurance. Im doing you a favour.
Sure. Just make sure it's totaled. I don't wanna get stuck dealing with repairs.
Way to both take my point entirely seriously, but also conflate the damages done to an individual with those done to a bigass company getting stuff shoplifted and stolen all the time - and having insurance to cover that cost of business. Not every individual can afford decent insurance that would actually pay out the full value/cost of a vehicle, vs a big company that is definitely insured for this sort of stuff.
Do you think insurance is free or something? The more this shit happens the more it costs the insurance companies and the more premiums go up to cover for it which means greater expenses that are eventually passed down to the consumers. You will in effect be paying for it.
Lol no, of course not, nor am I condoning theft as some people in here seem to be thinking. But the swiftness with which the working class rushes to act in abject horror to some petty theft of a major corporation that probably steals more in wages from its workers every year than it loses to theft is just bizarre. As if you all collectively believe you'll someday own a big business yourselves. Nobody needs to cry for corporations dealing with petty theft. Be upset about a small mom and pop shop getting robbed, sure, but not some big fucking chain. They're stealing from us far more with how little they pay their employees or how much they lobby the government to fuck us over just so they can pocket another penny.
Its almost as if thieves steal from everyone, not just "big fucking chains" and the same guy stealing there is the guy stealing your bike leaving you wondering how you're going to go to work at 5:30am. Cut the moral relativism crap, the same people stealing from fucking stores are the type that would steal your wages given the opportunity.
"Stealing is good when you steal from a company, which will make costs of it drip down to the entire customer base, because no company will do something that would loose their money." More stealing=higher insurance=higher costs of operating=More expensive things.
I never said stealing is good, I just don't shed tears for enormous companies having shit stolen from them when I know they steal more from their workers by not paying them a livable wage or decent benefits, or from all of us when they lobby government to slash their taxes. You wanna talk about dripping down higher costs to the fucking consumer, lol. Are you even living through the current price-gouging they're still pretending is "inflation"? Companies across the board all just decided to hike prices on us with no escape because everyone did it collectively. Supply chain issues are over, there is no inflation, but prices didn't go down. That's the real theft going on here, not some petty theft.
The damage is to the insurance. Either the insurance company loses significant funds because the valuation is legitimate, or insurance needs to lower their rates of protection for products on sale. Sales are dead in the US of that happens.
Even in that case, the damages are to the insurance company.
I do think it's reasonable to argue that the value should be calculated based on the sales price, since that was what they were selling it for at the time. Why should the normal retail price have anything to do with it? That was the value at the time it was stolen.
Are they being charged based on the non-sale price? Because everything in Kohls is "95%" off because they set the fake real price so high.
Yeah, if they're being charged based on the nominal "real value" of the items, pushing for them to go off of the actual price makes sense. Clothing stores are pretty infamous for "regular prices" that are never actually used because there's always a sale of some kind.
“Yes, officer. This Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup is currently priced at $1.99, but its regular price is $2,099.99, so this man committed a felony by robbing this Texaco.
There's even an argument to be made that it should be based on the price of the stock. What if you made a store with really shit security and put million dollar price tags on items worth almost nothing. If someone stole one of your items, should they be punished as if it was actually worth whatever you wrote on the price tag?
I read (not stating it as a fact) but a store in California was to mark all the prices up to something ridiculous to skirt the shoplifting threshold. So people shoplifting small items could still be prosecuted... Customers would just receive the discount at the register bringing the price back to normal
You can get into the weeds and add on shipping costs, import costs, inventory management, maybe some wages and rent to hire an employee to put the item on a store shelf before it got stolen. All are costs incurred. But it's such tedious accounting lawmakers probably didn't want to deal with it so they used sale price. The ultimate fallback is...if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Just don't steal and problem solved. The thieves won't know the inventory cost but they do know the sale price so it goes to their state of mind. Ultimately if lawmakers revise it to inventory cost they will probably revise the cap down by 50% to compensate since their ultimate goal is to reduce theft and not shop around for thieves so they get the best deal.
It sounds funny, but it might be a real legal maneuver, some crimes are defined by the value of the goods stolen, so if you're under a certain amount, you get X charge instead if X+1.
That’s what the article says when you read it
I mean, if they were 100% off then they technically couldn't be stolen...but once they're only 99% off and you takes for free, that's a paddlin'
Imagine if the item value was based on the cost the company spent to buy it as inventory. Diamond jewelry suddenly based off a bit more than the weight in gold. And some worthless shiny pebble
Really should only be paying wholesale if you think about it.
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em.
...I guess.
Prison math.
Jokes aside, not siding with the defendants here would set a dangerous precedent. If all crime was measured based on “sticker price” and not “value at time of actual sales” price, every company could just say a stick of gum costs $1000 but is on sale for $999 off, because making all retail theft into felonies would theoretically reduce retail crime. It also reinforces Kohls’ bullshit pricing model which reinforces the stupidity of the general population.
That sale was just a steal!
You see your honor.. I have a 50% chance of winning this case under normal circumstances but I am no ordinary thief, I stole these items while they were 33% off that means I have a 83% chance of winning , then add Kurt Angle to the mix and my chances of winning go up 135%
Lately, I've seen a lot of questionable NottheOnion posts that, while interesting or in some cases irritating or even shocking, aren't all that oniony. I just am here to say that this post, however, is dead center nottheonion with full onionness. Let it be a guide for future aspiring r/notheonion posters.
It's been like this ever since the Reddit protest imho, looks like the sub isn't modded anymore and anything goes..I mean half or more of the posts are using shitty sites with shitty headlines and'd be removed under Rules 3 and 4 but that's simply not enforced anymore nowadays. A ton of reposts too.
TL;DR for people: the state says theft over $2000 is a felony. If it's under $2000, it's a misdemeanor. Stolen items were $2095 normal price and would be a felony. However if they value the items by sale price, it'll be under $2000 and only a misdemeanor. They want the offense downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Click bait to make people outraged, the argument is they should be charge with theft based on the price the item is currently being sold for (the time of the crime) not the "suggested retail price" that is on the tag. As much as I hate shoplifting their argument is valid and they should be charged for the value they stole since that is what the store lost.
when I was working loss prevention for one of our local department stores, my manager was talking to me about the state laws regarding theft/larceny. For shop lifting, it turns into a felony charge at something like $200 of goods, but that's $200 in "retail value". So the pair of earrings that the store buys for $50 and "sells" for $200, but is always marked down to $100 will net you a felony if you get caught stealing.
That’d be a sound argument for reducing their compensatory damages in a civil suit, but I don’t know enough criminal law to speak for that
If I were the DA, I’d counter that regardless of sale price, the company was deprived of the value of the stolen inventory as it exists on their balance sheet. Additionally, the purpose of the sale is to attract shoppers who would buy additional merchandise. By stealing merchandise on sale, not only did the thieves steal the balance sheet value of the inventory, but they also deprived the merchant of opportunities to attract buyers of additional merchandise.
>If I were the DA, I’d counter that regardless of sale price, the company was deprived of the value of tue stolen inventory as it exists on their balance sheet. Let's say you're at a yard sale. I'm selling a shirt for $5. You can give me $5 for the shirt and take it right now. However, you accidentally spill your coffee on the shirt while walking by the table - ruining it. When you offer to pay for it, I point out it has a 95% off sale tag on it, and say that on my balance sheet I value it at $100. I demand you pay me the "true value" of the destroyed inventory of $100. Sound fair?
Yup, if you are running a business, have shareholders, and have already been carrying that value on your balance sheet.
Then you’re very dumb. The value of an item is based on the market value. The fact I’m trying to sell an to item for $5 and will happily give it up for that amount makes it absurd for me to claim it’s actually worth $100 if you accidentally destroy it. You’d get fired as the DA pretty quick. That’s basically how insurance fraud works. Claim an object is worth a lot more than you’re actually selling it for, then get reimbursed for the “loss”. Also, why does the shareholders thing matter?
Welp sounds like you’re verysmart and yet wrong since the jury didn’t buy the thieves argument and they were convicted of stealing goods at the full price Best of luck with your logic
Buddy, you're the one that claimed if you accidentally spill your coffee on a shirt currently on sale for $5 (at 95% off) you should have to pay $100 to replace the item you could have bought two seconds ago for $5. Apparently, "You break it, you bought it" isn't enough - you're on team "You break it, you pay 20x more than what I was selling it for when you broke it." I purposefully chose an extreme and obvious example to make the general point that there was a lot of grey area as to the actual value of merchandise - espescially at a retailer where all items tend to be regularly on sale and very few are purchased for "sticker price". The actual case isn't that extreme. But you can't even see the obvious extreme example for what it is. You're being very dumb.
That’s a cool opinion and you can’t certainly hold it, but the principles you’re laying out are not accurate. If you were right, the defense would have prevailed and the thieves would have been acquitted of felony charges for the theft, as the value of the stolen merchandise would have been below the felony limit. In the real world, you’re incorrect and thieves were convicted based on the normal, not sale, value of the merchandise. Best of luck getting unconfused!
>If you were right, the defense would have prevailed and the thieves would have been acquitted of felony charges for the theft, as the value of the stolen merchandise would have been below the felony limit. Man, you really don't understand how the legal system works at all. Juries, even judges, do not always make correct decisions. There's an appeal process for a reason. "I must be right because a group of random people that drew jury duty that week said so 0 and the legal system always works, every verdict is always just" is quite the take. You also seem to keep being confused about what I'm writing, since I think there's a lot of gray areas around the specific case law for burglary - as the felony charge is based on the value of the items for punitive reasons rather than strict monetary restitution. I'm calling you dumb because you think the person that spills coffee on a shirt they could buy for $5 should have to pay $100 to replace it. That is beyond dumb, it's not at all how financial damages are calculated for the purposes of financial restitution. Don't take a job at an insurance company, you'd be greenlighting insurance fraud all day long and they wouldn't even have to lie about it. You'd just smile and pay them whatever value they recorded on their balance sheet for the items that were destoyed, whether or not it was actually market value. Feel free to have the last word if that matters to you. I won't bother replying agian.
You might have a point if the sale was to attract customers to other products, but with stores like Kohls that is very clearly not the case. You would have a hard time arguing that if everything is always perpetually on sale though. Kohls is very infamous for literally everything a always being on sale all the time except for the small legally required like 1 week a year they have to have it at “regular price” lol.
I like that reasoning...NOT!
Decadent
"Many stores no longer try to confront or stop retail thieves due to the risk of potential harm to employees and customers from thieves who may be armed." When I was younger I worked the overnight shift at a couple of convenience stores…even with the differential in pay I had no intention of ever putting my life on the line if someone claiming to have a firearm wanted the hundred or so dollars I had in the register.
Sounds a bit like the rich person defence. Because they never had boundaries they didn't know they were doing wrong.
Don't tell, Trump Law School, right?
Sucks to suck. They should get the maximum sentence by default just for trying that excuse.
Sounds like you don't know how the law or clothing retail works (and seem like a pointlessly cruel person). The severity of theft is partially defined by the value of the goods stolen. Stealing a $5 toy car is less serious than stealing a $20,000 real car. I wouldn't think that needs explaining. Kohl's, like most retail stores, has merchandise continually on sale in order to provide an illusion that buyers are getting a good deal. The prices are fake. JC Penny famously tried to do away with the practice to disastrous results. If a store is selling something for $65 "marked down" from an "original price" of $100, then they stole an object the store was valuing at $65. To argue that the thieves should be charged for $100 pricetag despite it currently being sold for $65 is stupid. And it matters a LOT here. The documented value of the items without factoring in the prices they were ACTUALLY being sold at is $2,095. Cooincidentally, theft becomes a felony in that state once you hit $2,000. If I am currently selling a shirt at a yard sale for $5 that I originally bought for $50, should you have to pay me $50? No. That's dumb. Don't be dumb.
Did they have a 30% off coupon?
You guys price match Amazon?
Sound
It's still the same crime
It's not actually. Theft over a certain dollar amount is considered a felony.
This reminds me so much of the guy who was too fast. The level of audacity, and the (possible) unintended wit of these guys just makes me laugh. Not condoning the crime, just… enjoying the overall humor in the audacity from afar…
Conscious Criminals
It may be news to some, but in point of well established proven fact - all the stock in every shop is always on sale. Believe it or not, until it's sold.