withrespect
:wr:
uhhh...
Anyway... Were these women ever apprehended?
Anyway... Were these women ever apprehended?
Crime LOOTING: Victoria's Secret in Waldorf
- Thread starter David
- Start date
uhhh...
Anyway... Were these women ever apprehended?
Locally? I don't believe so.
withrespect
:wr:
sockgirl77
Well-Known Member
uhhh...
Anyway... Were these women ever apprehended?
No, they sure were not. I asked a CCSO buddy of mine about it a few days ago.
Misfit
Lawful neutral
That sucks. I hate a thief.
Is that why you don't like Hank?
He might steal your heart? 
I love Victoria's Secret. All of the bras, panties, and even the clothes just make me feel prettier.
I have to say it is one of my favorite stores. These bitches.
Rumor has it that you don't wear panties, prove it.
Me, too.That sucks. I hate a thief.
Do a Google search and you will find several other same VS theft schemes.
withrespect
:wr:
Rumor has it that you don't wear panties, prove it.
that reminds me, looking at the video the sales people in VS should have known they were up to no good.
I don't think VS carried their size.
Employees may have thought they were buying for there daughters. :shrug: I wonder if an employee was in on it.
Based on what I saw, there is no way they were "buying", which is a good indication one or more employees were ignoring what was going on.
acommondisaster
Active Member
More likely the employee/s were at the back of the store at the register. My experience in most stores in the mall is that it's tough to find an floor staff.
withrespect
:wr:
Misfit
Lawful neutral
DannyMotorcycle
Active Member
3 to 4% supposedly. It's so significant they don't change their model.. they don't change their security.. and while i can see a difference, that doesnt' mean at the end
of the day they are still out of that sale/product/profit/investment..
and let's face it, VS is a luxury item.. the cost is 4% higher oh well... aren't they still giving away free panties with a coupon? so hell, the more these hoodrats steal the crap and go around trying to sell it, theyr'e advertsiing it for them. LOL.
I'm not justifying that it's okay, so morons can stop acting like i am, and reading it wrong.. what i'm saying is until we demand our courts get touhg on crime, i'd rather the harm to us be a rise in luxury goods 4% than their dirty filthy hands and bodies be in our homes ransacking crap and stealing our sentimental items and emotionally hurting us.
They don't change their model because it might offend a potential customer. They also can't run the risk of lawsuits.
It's not unheard of for a fleeing thief to sue over an injury they receive. Defending these frivolous lawsuits is also expensive.
From a cost certainty perspective it's safer do as they are doing.
It's not unheard of for a fleeing thief to sue over an injury they receive. Defending these frivolous lawsuits is also expensive.
From a cost certainty perspective it's safer do as they are doing.
Sure, they could move all their crap behind the counter. But then they wouldn't sell much. You keep getting it wrong. It is the thief that is the problem, not the store that sells the merchandise.
You are justifying it and that's why we won't give you a pass. The wrongness of a crime does not depend on whether the victim is a corporation or an individuals
. It also doesn't depend on whether the stolen goods are luxury items or necessities.
Last edited: