If you rob it, it will close
Lying in the bed Shitcongoans made for themselves.
Watch: Chicago residents complain about Walmart leaving their neighborhoods, say they “deserve to be able to shop” at stores they’ve repeatedly looted
Today, citizens of the leftist utopia of Chiraq are surprised that private businesses would pull out of their crime-ridden neighborhoods!
These dummies act like it’s a guaranteed right to have a Walmart in their neighborhood, even though said Walmarts have been losing “tens of millions” annually because of theft, taxes, vandalism, and other losses.
“How do I feed my children?”
I dunno, my man, buy some chickens and sow some seeds like humans did for thousands of years before Sam Walton perfected big-box distribution and spent the money to build stores in your city?
Really, what can one say but BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
“We should not have to go out of our communities to have to be able to shop! … We deserve to be able to shop!”
Yes, my man, this is true. In any civilized nation or city, these should be basic things you can do, because people like to make money and are more than happy to make it convenient for you to spend it.
But there’s a reason there are no Walmarts in Darfur or Fallujah.
Stores there would probably be safer, and a better bet all around for WalMart and its employees alike than Shitcongo. Follows, a passel of vids featuring the damage and destruction wrought by the selfsame Looter Americans who are now bitching about Wally World daring to starve their dumb-nigger asses out by closing the stores they themselves wantonly trashed.
Hey, I have an idea for feral Shitcongo Dindus who will be denied their daily calories by those cruel WalMart RAYCISSNSHEEIT: cannibalism. Try it, you might like it!
Via Bayou Pete—who, happily, is back from his weekend hiatus and in fine fettle:
Residents of Chicago, Portland, Seattle, and other cities where the mob has become accustomed to stealing what they like, when they like, and getting away with it, are now discovering the consequences of allowing that to happen. What store can afford to stay in business when every day that it does so costs it more money than it makes? (Not to mention the consequences to its staff, who are imperiled by criminal thugs and looters!)
The trouble is, those who’ve grown used to taking what they want aren’t going to mend their ways when their local stores shut down. No – they’re going to spread their net wider, and try to do the same in more distant suburbs and neighboring towns. I don’t foresee much of a problem with that in my area: our cops (and the vast majority of our citizens) will have no trouble stopping such miscreants in their tracks (if necessary, the hard way). However, in many larger cities it’s going to be a problem. Public transport is more or less available, cars can be stolen or hijacked at gunpoint for a quick ride, and fresh loot isn’t far away; and police are so overloaded (not to mention underfunded) that they can’t deal with the crimes they’ve got right now, never mind increased shoplifting and looting in future.
As Peter suggests about his own locality, I’d certainly love to see them try it around these parts. Which isn’t terribly likely; they know already what the end result of that would be here in South Cackalacky, I’d bet.
Update! The NYT shits bed, buries lede, confirms things they’d rather not be confirmed.
327 who are above the law
The New York Times story did not say what its editors and their flying monkeys thought it said.
The headline said, “A Tiny Number of Shoplifters Commit Thousands of New York City Thefts.”
OK, you don’t need a J-school degree to figure out the message sent. Not everyone in NYC is boosting $4,500 Louis Vuitton purses. It is just a few people. Whew. What a relief to know this.
The subheadline said, “Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in the city last year involved just 327 people, the police said. Businesses say they have little defense.”
You see? The looting is by just a few people.
The story said, “Collectively, they were arrested and rearrested more than 6,000 times, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said. Some engage in shoplifting as a trade, while others are driven by addiction or mental illness; the police did not identify the 327 people in the analysis.”
The story, however, is you can rob stores dozens of times and get away with it. My question is why don’t more people in NYC just rob stores blind every day? I mean, come on people. If 327 people can get caught 6,000 times and get away with it, what is stopping 8 million people from looting Tiffany’s every morning and Macy’s every afternoon.
Maybe they are. Who knows how many New Yorkers steal and how many times they get away with it because the 327 people were just the ones the police caught. And the 6,000 arrests are just the times the 327 got caught.
Once again, NYT staffers throw a bunch of numbers around at random. You really cannot say, “A Tiny Number of Shoplifters Commit Thousands of New York City Thefts,” because the numbers reflect arrests, not crimes. And of course, there is the whole innocent-until-proven guilty thing that NYT conveniently forgets from time to time. So you cannot say commit.
NYT argued that stealing $4,500 Louis Vuitton purses is a crime of necessity. Its report said, “Criminal justice reform advocates have said that petty thefts are a crime of necessity, and that many down-on-their-luck New Yorkers are stealing what they need to survive in one of the world’s most expensive cities.”
And NYT also argued, “Retailers have pointed to shoplifting as a drag on profits for decades.”
Once again, the criminal is the victim. How dare the stores make profits!
Years ago, I remember a Charlotte-cop friend of mine telling me that CPD could end crime in CLT overnight, just by arresting the 1500 or so people responsible for almost all of it without some shitlib Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce judge springing them all the next morning. Yes, that’s CLT and NYC, but does anybody want to seriously argue that a like pattern doesn’t obtain in Shitcongo as well?