Wal-mart declared a public nuisance in Beech Grove

[foszoe]

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



You realize that statement is self-contradictory, right?

I didn't issue a challenge, I asked a question because I don't know the answer. A relatively rare concept anymore.

Please point out the contradiction to me, because I didn't see it.

My understanding is

Given: A disproportionate number of man hours are being devoted to Walmart shoplifting runs (nuisance law usage is valid)

Then the implication is other citizens and/or businesses needs are being neglected

Simple enough.

Do the folks worried about the victim think police no longer respond to Walmart calls? That's not my understanding so correct me if I am wrong. It's not like they have no recourse, they just have to pay for it.

Should Beech Grove taxes be raised across the board to provide extra officers for runs to Walmart and share the pain vs letting walmart pay an additional sum?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Not to mentioned the large number of mouth breathing rednecks that live in the grove.

Huh, I've never used that description of myself. But whatever fits.

 

[pudly]

Now people will try to make this binary and oversimplify.

You mean like in this thread? I'm not privy to what WM has done or has talked with BG about to minimize problems. Have they been uncooperative? Have they made changes to try and adjust?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I got a couple of comments when I was there last, posted in the "Where did you OC" thread. Both seemed complimentary of my carrying a firearm there (from civilians).

It's not a bad Wal-Mart at all. It's one of the newer style stores, it's clean. The employees aren't trashy.

The one thing I notice there is definitely the people. Certainly come from a different class in life. Seeing a grown-ass man walking around walmart wearing pajama pants is cringeworthy.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

We ARE charged for it. It's called TAXES! And Walmart pays plenty, I'm sure.

 

[HoughMade]

We ARE charged for it. It's called TAXES! And Walmart pays plenty, I'm sure.

So Walmart gets to deduct their fines from the taxes it pays? Cool.

 

[tbhausen]

Do you really think that would have any effect on the people that need to straighten out their acts?

Sure... Close the store for a week with a very public warning and explanation as to why (and what it'll take to keep it open in the future).

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I have a solution: Walmart needs to have off-duty officers working 24/7 at the store. BGPD has at most 4 officers working at any one time and with an arrest requiring at least 2 officers to handle there isn't enough manpower to cover other calls for service in their jurisdiction. The Walmart neighborhood markets have started employing off-duty officers, I don't see why the big stores can't do it as well.

And if you pay attention to the high-profile incidents occurring at the BG Walmart, you will see that most of the people involved do not even live in BG.

 

[femurphy77]

If Walmart is smart, they'll lay off their entire work force, close the store, and leave an empty building for Beech Grove to deal with.

THAT'S a huge can of worms!!!! Not as easy as you think, I do have a little experience in this arena but will NOT go into detail.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know, but how is it Walmart's fault?

If one owns property, one must be responsible for that property. I know this concept makes people mad here, but I am just explaining how the law sees it.

Walmart is in the best (most economically efficient) position to ensure that people behave on their property. They can impose a dress code, hygiene code, keep a trespass list, hire private security or off-duty officers or all of the above.

This particular Walmart needs to clean up its act to be a good citizen. This particular Walmart has chosen not to be a good citizen. The law shall correct them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If one owns property, one must be responsible for that property. I know this concept makes people mad here, but I am just explaining how the law sees it.

Walmart is in the best (most economically efficient) position to ensure that people behave on their property. They can impose a dress code, hygiene code, keep a trespass list, hire private security or off-duty officers or all of the above.

This particular Walmart needs to clean up its act to be a good citizen. This particular Walmart has chosen not to be a good citizen. The law shall correct them.

Eh, gotta disagree. Wal-Mart A and Wal-Mart B have the exact same policies... so why does Wal-Mart B have more crime issues than Wal-Mart A?

It's just location. The only thing the store can do to keep the problem from affecting them is to move somewhere else. But that's silly. It's not Wal-Mart's fault that the area is home to "working class" housing, and low-income families. Wal-Mart is as much to blame as the Jiffy Lube just down the road, or the Starbucks across the street.

So, yeah they could do those things. Off-duty officers or private security would be the only reasonable things in that list.

 

[Gadgetmonster]

Huh, I've never used that description of myself. But whatever fits.

PistolBob's description... "Mouth Breathing Rednecks" did cause me to re-read his post and it made me laugh....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

so why does Wal-Mart B have more crime issues than Wal-Mart A?

Why do you think it does? Because the media is only paying attention to one Wal-mart at the moment. BG had the misfortune of having a viral video pull eyes toward that location.

Compare run volume at BG Wal-mart and at 7245 US 31 S. Unless things have changed in the past few years, US 31 gets more runs.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You mean like in this thread? I'm not privy to what WM has done or has talked with BG about to minimize problems. Have they been uncooperative? Have they made changes to try and adjust?

No idea. I'm not in the loop beyond one of the most recent incidents involved someone I had a warrant on. Otherwise I know what's in public domain and nothing more.

 

[bobzilla]

If one owns property, one must be responsible for that property. I know this concept makes people mad here, but I am just explaining how the law sees it.

Walmart is in the best (most economically efficient) position to ensure that people behave on their property. They can impose a dress code, hygiene code, keep a trespass list, hire private security or off-duty officers or all of the above.

This particular Walmart needs to clean up its act to be a good citizen. This particular Walmart has chosen not to be a good citizen. The law shall correct them.

But to enforce these new rules and. Odds of conduct they will have to call the police more. How does that help? Yet another case of an idiot politician grandstanding refusing to accept the fact that his constituents are the problem, not the store.

wife and I frequent 3 different WM stores. Lebanon, brownsburg and 86/Michigan. The 3 stores couldn't be more different in their clientele and cleanliness. Just because BG sucks doesn't mean you punish the store.

 

[HoughMade]

I have to admit- at first blush it seems to me like unfairly targeting the victim of crimes. I've said as much.

However, I guess my question would be whether Walmart's security policies and practice are markedly different from Target or Meijer or KMart? I don't know.

I would note that Walmart has the reputation for the biggest selection of cheap stuff, which the others do not. As is obvious, I live in Valparaiso and the Walmart and Target are one squirrelly road and less than a mile apart. However, the customers, by behavior and appearance, are miles and miles apart. The Valpo Walmart seems clean and the merchandise seems looked after. Yet, the sketchy people choose Walmart (even over the K Mart on Calumet which is older and not as well kept).

I've seen articles critical of Walmart's lack of parking lot security patrols. Do the others? I've never seen them.

Legally speaking, I know that even if the clientele (a generous word in many instances) is the problem, and if a business is on notice of that, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect it's other customers. This may even mean doing more than Target or Meijer (or even K Mart) does, but it doesn't seem fair. Yeah, I know, life's not fair.

Anyhoo- the Valpo Walmart is better than Portage, which was the store we went to when we lived in South Haven....but then again we lived in South Haven, so we probably didn't even notice how sketchy it really was....our neighbors were probably the most sketchy of all.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But to enforce these new rules and. Odds of conduct they will have to call the police more. How does that help?

Nope. There have been several night clubs and bars who have had to implement dress codes, etc. Their bouncers take care of people who won't comply, those people generally leave or don't bother to come in the first place, and police runs go down.

 

[Clay]

sounds to me like this might be a good way to make sure they purposely DON'T call the police...... which can be a bad thing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If one owns property, one must be responsible for that property. I know this concept makes people mad here, but I am just explaining how the law sees it.

Walmart is in the best (most economically efficient) position to ensure that people behave on their property. They can impose a dress code, hygiene code, keep a trespass list, hire private security or off-duty officers or all of the above.

This particular Walmart needs to clean up its act to be a good citizen. This particular Walmart has chosen not to be a good citizen. The law shall correct them.

Why do you hate The People of Walmart website?