Oldest klepto excuse in the book. "What, do I look like a thief? How could you accuse someone like me? This is an outrage."

how does one accidently put a more expensive pair of flip-flops in a box with a cheaper price tag

Who knows what really happened? I'm kind of buying KMart's side of the story though. Nice use of the bully pulpit though.

Stealing? Really? I would think that working for Murdoch would drive you to drink.

There is no such thing as someone who looks like a thief. Anyone can be one and what she did was try steal whether intentional or not. She should just take her punishment and pay the fine or whatever she gets. FYI if you ever go to a jail and talk to the inmates youll find out they are all innocent and did nothing to be there. They were all either setup, wrongly accused, dont feel like they did anything wrong because they didnt know they were breaking the law etc...

I've worked loss prevention before. You would be surprised how many people that steal BS items have the money to pay for it. On one memorable occasion our badguy was searched by the police after we'd detained him. He had stolen 3 CDs, maybe $30 value. He had $2200 in his pants! WTH???

@Black Bellamy: Granted. But there is also a point where these stores need to recognize that some of what thieves do can be done as honest mistakes. Heck, that's WHY the thieves do it, because they want a built-in excuse. If the customer is willing to pay the difference, let them and let it drop. You did your job by catching it and you resolved the situation by collecting the underpayment. You let it go there.

Target (at least when I worked there) had a checkout policy that you scanned the price tag attached to the shoes, never ever on the box - for this exact reason. Some customers do it on purpose, but so many of the shoes get screwed up on the rack, it's not worth the time to fix it.

So she spends hundreds there. One has to wonder now, if the hundreds she spends equated to actual thousands in merchandise. Kmart may be better off not having her come there.

This lady sounds a bit stuck up. Look, its not just the poor that steal.

Meh. She could have picked somewhere less craptacular to steal from. I mean, if you're gonna go for it, why not go for the gold?

Well, it does seem kinda odd that if it was intentional she was only trying to scam $8 worth of better sandals. If you put the Prada in the Crocs box, that's one thing, but $24.50 shoes in a $16.50 shoe box?

I'm not saying that criminals don't do this kind of stuff, or that rich people never steal, but doesn't that support her version of events a bit? Also, since she and her family spent over $800, that would suggest that she's interesting in paying for items, not pilfering them.

Her story's a bit lame, though: "I had size 9 shoes without a box, and the only size 9 box had kids shoes in it so it must have actually been the box for my shoes. Didn't bother checking the prices or anything else." WTH? Also a bit strange that she went to one register and the rest of her family to another.

@toddkravos: easy. You go to buy a pair of flip flops, like the ones you found, look around for the box which you would assume would be in the area of like flip flops (or perhaps even said flip flops where in that box though in this case it's the former) and then take them up to the front, all the while under the idea that you matched the right box to the right shoes.

I have seen this happen MANY times, so much so that most stores now put a tag on the shoes AND the box to prevent it from accidentally happening. Many like Target wont even scan the box anymore but the tag on the shoe.

The joke is, those who DO continue to scan the box just as often charge more for the shoe than its worth than they charge less and its up to the consumer to look and realize what has happened. Of course they dont consider that a criminal act despite it being the exact reverse of what happened here. But in this case, thats a accident.

@Black Bellamy: She means she's white. And not the kind that lives in a house with wheels.

There is something I don't get about the story. How did Kmart know the box contained the wrong shoes? Did the check out person notice? If so, why didn't the checkout person point out the error, or attempted stealing, right then rather then waiting for the customer to leave the store and then sending security after them?

For those asking "why didn't she check the price?" I suggest visiting the shoe aisles at a busy K-Mart once and a while - it usually looks like a bomb went off recently.

Most items in stores are now unpriced, but I do believe K-Mart and WalMart price the individual shoe boxes.

So she grabs a pair of flip-flops off the shelf or floor, which are probably unmarked/unpriced and tries to find a box for them.

Her only fault was (as she stated in the article) not notifying the cashier about the box possibly being wrong.

How much more expensive could the pricier flip flops be if they're from kmart? Really...

I would think with shrinkage being, what did the article say, $40 billion...BILLION(?!), they would start trying something different like RFID. Something more customer friendly that can track inventory much better.

Instead, you now ring yourself up, bag your own stuff and get detained by elderly door greeters and over-zealous college kids so they can check your receipt. Perhaps I can start stocking the shelves. At least I know that I won't be overcharging myself.

Retailers are losing money but they are attacking the problem incorrectly, obviously, or else shrinkage would go down and consumer happiness would go up. I wish them luck b/c lower shrinkage would mean lower prices on the shelf but again, they need a new approach.

When I worked retail on Madison Ave years ago (its like RODEO DRIVE but in NYC), People were trying to steal all the time. If anything, the perps seemed to think the high end environment gave them protection. And when they were politely caught (this is not kmart), they would just as politely produce their platinum amex card and pay for the item(s).

Jeebus -
I GET that the consumerist is 99% anti-corporation, but COME ON!
DEFENDING someone who pulled an old scam? Bashing KMART for doing what they should be doing?
Ugh. This makes me sick.
Here's the deal, Consumerist editors....
This is probably the MOST used scam in the books. Grab the shoe you want, slip it into a box with a cheaper price tag, and try to scam the store.
She got caught, and instead of utilizing journalistic integrity, you automatically side with the consumer....
Yeah. An accident. And people with money never steal anything or try and scam anything.
Unless your name is Winona Rider. Or any host of people we are all aware of. This yoohoo tried to rip off Kmart.
Intentionally or not, she did something that stores LOOK for. As consumerist readers are fond of reporting, they must witness the theft - which they did.
Here we have a case of a person who got caught doing exactly what security teams are trained to observe, who then cries foul and proclaims innocence...
She isn't.
And the consumerist should be fair, not just anti-corporation all the time...
Can you say "Bias"?

@FREAKHEAD: Oh they dont care thats why they dont do something different. If they DID care they would go after their employee's more since a good 60-70% of shrinkage is the result of your employee's rather than a customer.

But the solutions to fixing that they would never want to implement as the studys that show this point out that raising the hourly wage, and giving better in store benefits to its workers reduce that number by a decent percentage.

She should shoplift of ticket switch at either Wally World or Tarbutt, they have store policies not to prosecute if under $25 & $20.

==========================

take a look at Target's AP Directives at:
[targetfiling.blogspot.com]

here is a short summary:
From: targetfiling.blogspot.com
=====================================
C. Five Steps for Apprehension
Certified AP team members must observe all five steps prior to making a shoplifter apprehension.

NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.

1. Initiation of Observation - The subject must enter the store/area without possession of Target merchandise.
2. Selection - The subject must be observed selecting Target merchandise from the display location.
3. Concealment - The subject must be observed concealing the merchandise, or the AP team member must have NO reasonable doubt based on observations that the merchandise has been concealed by the subject.
NOTE: If the merchandise is not actually concealed, it must be exposed as the subject exits or attempts to exit the store.
4. Maintain Observation - The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise.
NOTE: A Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) shall be attempted if surveillance is broken for any reason, or the AP team member can not maintain sufficient surveillance. (See PMR Directive).
5. Failure to Pay for Merchandise/Exiting the Store -AP team member(s) must observe the subject attempt to exit the store without paying for the merchandise.
NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow variances from the exiting requirement to allow apprehensions of concealed merchandise before an individual reaches the building's exit. In these cases, the requirements must be documented and approved by the Director or Vice President of Assets Protection using the "Variance from Exiting Form" (found on the AP Zone).

-----------------
D. Restroom / Fitting Room Apprehensions
AP team members are not allowed to conduct surveillance or make apprehensions in restroom and/or fitting rooms.
1. AP team members are not allowed to follow subject's into a restroom or fitting room to conduct surveillance.
2. AP team members shall not ask another team member to enter a fitting room or restroom to conduct surveillance.
---------------
B. Searches of Private Residence or Motor Vehicles
1. AP team members will NOT participate in a search of a private residence or motor vehicle.
--------------
1. Fleeing Shoplifter
a. If a shoplifter attempts to flee after being confronted, do not give chase in any manner (running, driving, etc.).
b. Store based AP team members shall not use any vehicle to follow or pursue a subject for any reason.
c. AP team members shall not encourage, condone, suggest or ask another Target team member or anyone else to chase a fleeing shoplifter.
----------------
2. AP shall refer for prosecution all individuals apprehended for retail theft when the value of the merchandise is $20.00 or greater and the case meets local prosecution requirements.
NOTE: If a case meets/exceeds the $20.00 referral guideline, but is NOT referred, the reason for non-referral must be included in the CIRS narrative. (Example: Local jurisdiction limits require merchandise in excess of $75.00 in order for prosecution.)
3. A team member witness, of the same gender of the suspected shoplifter , must be present in the room at all times during the detention.
--------------
A. Photographing Shoplifters
1. Adult shoplifters - AP shall photograph all adult shoplifters unless prohibited by local statutes or ordinances.
2. Team Member Shoplifters - AP will not photograph any team member apprehended for shoplifting during working or non-working hours.
3. Juvenile Shoplifters - AP will not photograph any juveniles apprehended for shoplifting, unless required by local statutes or ordinances.

BTW, I read the article this morning on the subway, and I thought she should have said something too. DUH, she found the box with the price on it, in other words - she priced the item herself. She should have made sure it was correct, funny how the MISTAKE favored her wallet. I have a feeling she is white? Most of us with brown skin no better then to try such a stunt being we seem to always be under surveillance while shopping.

It's almost impossible to render a judgment on this case. "She said" "He said".

Many shoplifters are upper-middle-class white women, so the "do I look like?" challenge is just wrong. Remember Bess Myerson? A former Miss America, in her middle age she ran NYC's bureau of consumer affairs, and was caught shoplifting petty items - big media scandal. People who are not needy often shoplift for the thrill of beating the system. Sometimes they have impulse-control problems due to mood disorders or personality quirks.

I'm also sympathetic to the wrong-box situation, though. Those discount stores can be a real mess when it comes to rack displays.

Give the lady a warning (if she knowingly shoplifted, this will scare the crap out of her and she's unlikely to repeat) and call it a day.

@killavanilla: look who is biased here. Do you know that this woman did infact steal and intend on stealing? Can you look into her mind or the mind of many others and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they where infact intending to steal.

That fact is not everyone "switches shoes" intending to steal them. You have little far to look than the rows of shoes in Walmart or Kmart than to see that they are the most unkept isles in the entire store. If they where so concerned about stopping this scam, then they would either

1) bring back a service rep to the shoe department like they did in the 80's

2) tag the SHOE and the not the box and stop using the box as the price like every other store in the US now does.

Neither the store nor the "accidental thief" deserve any sympathy here. The store should know that their shoe section is a disaster and (a) clean it up, and (b) check prices on shoes at the register as a matter of routine. If the shoes don't have a price on them at all, then how is the customer OR the store supposed to know how much they cost? It's also idiotic for the store to start throwing around larger accusations at the customer beyond the immediate problem, especially if they're not going to check the rest of the items she bought or the people she was with. "You deliberately stole this item but we trust you and your family on the other $800 of merchandise?!?" That shows the store is far more interested in driving away certain people they've decided they don't want than in actually reducing their losses to theft.

And the customer sounds like she got more and more indignant instead of apologetic. She screwed up, picking the wrong box. She screwed up again, not telling the cashier that she put the shoes in the box (and by the way, the shoe section is a complete mess, please page someone to clean it up). Then she screwed up a third time, not reading what she was signing. (And especially when the store is treating you like a criminal, READ WHAT YOU'RE SIGNING!) And finally she uses her position at the WSJ to whine about how she's such a victim instead of doing something productive like examining the conditions that poorer people are forced to shop in all the time (for example, no item pricing benefits the store because they overcharge far more often than they undercharge).

Upon RTFA, I think the only thing she left out was:

"Do you know who I am!?"

She sounds really conceited and full of herself. And wasn't there a study recently that showed upper-middle-class, middle-aged white women are the most likely demographic to shoplift?

@killavanilla: Agreed.

Random notes:

From the article, it seems the reason she was caught was that this is a common way to steal so it would be safe to assume that the eye in the sky or a plain clothes saw her do it.

Why did they not stop her at the counter? Then you cannot collar her. Whomever spotted this would get no credit for an arrest (though she was not arrested, just some sort of fine and notice not to go that store again).

Why go into different lines if she was innocent? The concept is parrallel processing. If both she and her daughter had carts filled with purchase materials then it would be faster to each go to a different checkout and thus be checked out simultaneously. Faster. Not really indictive of a crime.

Read the article...it is odd how many of you posted here without reading the article. Thanks for spouting off without knowing the facts.

Interesting note within the article about 'merchant's privilege' and the store's right to detain, question and investigate.

With respect to the comment about the Madison Avenue store, you seem to imply that there is something OK with the attempt to steal so long as the item is paid for after being caught? Am I reading this wrong? I hope so.

Lastly, please, no one bring up the 4th Amendment because as has been beaten to death, K-Mart is a private entity.

Read the article. Summation, she made a mistake most likely but the store also was well within their right to do as they did. In all, this seems to be a who cares. An interesting note in the article pointed out that if they truly believed her to be stealing, they would have called the police which they did not do.

@Falconfire:
I don't know what she was thinking, but I do know what she did.
She put a more expensive pair of shoes in a less expensive box. Then, she failed to mention what she had done. she should have.
But to automatically take her side and imply that KMart did wrong is ridiculous.
That's called 'media bias'.
"Kmart detained Wall Street Journal editor Laura Landro after she accidentally stole $8 from them by putting a more expensive pair of flipflops in a box with a cheaper price tag. "
That is a bias statement that implies innocence on the part of the shoplifter.
A unbiased sentence would say something like:
"Kmart detained WSJ editor Laura Landro after she allegedly placed a more expensive pair of flip flops in a box with a lower price tag."
The word "accidentally" implies that the editors of the consumerist believe it was an accident. By stating it that way, they biased the story against KMart and for Landro based on their assumption that KMart did wrong, not Landro.
They didn't say that Landro swapped price tags to save $8, they said she accidentally did it - which as you correctly point out, we don't know.
So why are they so eager to side with someone who did the wrong thing?
That's called "Bias". And it is endemic around here. God forbid anyone sides against the one-sided stories and for the corporation being blamed, and every one starts crying about 'blaming the victim'. The victim in this case was KMart. And here the consumerist blames them for this womans error.
It may have been an innocent mistake, but KMart didn't do anything close to wrong.

If you read the ENTIRE story (how many of you commenters did?) you'll see that it's actually a pretty even-handed treatment of both sides of the story. Anyone who has been in the shoe department of a KMart (Walmart, etc.) knows how easily this could happen. On the other hand, she acknowledges that KMart has heard stories like hers a hundred times before.

The part I like is that, despite her "professional" status and her house in the Hamptons she was treated pretty much like any teenager or person of color from the inner city would be treated. As it should be.

I just wanted to add my voice to everyone who commented about the K-Mart shoe section. I totally agree, a mistake like this would be very easy to make. Shoe sections in the superstores are completely disorganized- tags switched, tags missing, etc. If there isn't a tag on something I won't buy it- too much hassle to track down an employee to find the right price, etc etc. Everyone lay off the poor lady!

OTOH I do know that shoplifting is a huge problem in retail. There are organized shoplifting rings that can do a lot of damage, and I understand why the store would take a hard stand about it.

@gafpromise:
I guess my problem is that people keep saying it was a 'mistake'.
In the original article, she states that she placed the shoes in a box she knew wasn't correct. Hence, no mistake was made. It was intentional and she was well aware that she did it.
So if she KNEW she put the shoes in the wrong box, the mistake was not letting the cashier know what she had done.

@Javert: In that Madison Ave store, we never chased anyone out the door, nor would I if encouraged to do so by management, not my style or my job. Who knows how much money in lost revenue walked out the door. What I was referring to was when we saw someone try to hide an item on their body, we would simply approach them before they exited the store and ask "would you like me to ring-up that item you stuffed in your purse/coat/suit for you?" Never had someone said no, they would just turn around go to the register and produce their high end card. The employees were searched daily anytime we wanted to exit the store with a bag or jacket so in this case not a lot of internal theft.

"Did I seem to him like someone who would cheat the store out of $8 and risk this kind of treatment?" Uhhhh, you're a white woman. You seem EXACTLY like the type of person who shoplifts. I'm not saying that all white women are shoplifters, but I am saying that most shoplifters are white women (at least those who get caught).

@toddkravos: Have you seen a KMart or Target Shoe area... better yet go to a walmart one. There are empty boxes everywhere because no one puts the shoes away after trying them on.

@warf0x0r:
That's no excuse and you know it.
If you went to a jewelry store and looked at 3 diamond rings with three boxes, put a more expensive ring in a less expensive rings box, would it be any different?
Fact: she put the shoes in a box that had a lower price
fact: she neglected to tell anyone
The state of cleanliness of the stores shoe aisle is not at issue.

Ok first of all, I believe ALL kmart shoes are priced with a tag on the shoe. I used to work at kmart, and I never once scanned the box of a pair of shoes to get the price, in fact most of the time when a customer brought up a pair of shoes we were told to scan only the price tag and throw the box away. Also for every shoe, there is a number on the inside of the shoe that lets you ring up the shoe in case the price tag is missing. If the cashier was suspicious she should have used the number instead of just scanning the box.

They must have her on camera intentionally switching the box. I am not saying she is in the right, but this is a very easy thing to prevent from happening. Most kmarts here require a price check for EVERY item, even if its a 20 cent difference, so if the shoes didn't have a tag on them I would think the cashier would have called for a price check, if she didn't know about the number on the inside of the shoe.

@Falconfire: I couldn't agree more, it was a point I meant to touch upon.

@killavanilla: Its COMPLETELY a valid excuse.

You are obviously not a woman, have never dated a woman, or never payed attention to a woman who loves shoes as anyone who lives with or married a woman who is a shoe addict knows that it doesnt matter if its the right box or not if they are buying shoes... THEY MUST HAVE A BOX. Any box. It makes their vast collection of shoes they may wear only once easier to manage.

Its not the consumers fault that the store cant keep their damn shoe section straight enough so that you can match the right shoe to the right box. But as I said before this is why good stores tag the shoes, and crappy stores like Wallyworld and KMart tag the box.

People shouldn't judge so quickly. I once went into a store to purchase a sports bag. I picked one up, unzipped it to check inside and decided to get it. There was no price tag on the bag I had picked up so I reached down and picked up one with a tag and went to the cashier. When I handed it to the cashier she opened the bag and lo and behold there were several items of clothing inside. The cashier looked at me like I had put the items in the bag. I explained I hadn't bothered to unzip it and check inside. She took the items out and I purchased the bag. All the while she had this glare on her face that told me she was convinced I had put the items in the bag even though I hadn't

@jaredgood1: "most shoplifters are white women"

Please cite something supporting this claim. I'm not saying it's untrue, just that I'd like to see some proof for such a blanket generalization.

@Falconfire:
Um. No. It isn't an excuse.
I have dated many women and paid attention to all of them. Some were self-professed 'shoe whores'.
But your 'addiction' doesn't excuse this behavior.
want a box and can't find one? Fine.
Then tell the cashier that you just grabbed a box and the shoes inside are different. Or, bring the box seperately from the shoes.
Or ask for a box after checkout.
But she didn't do any of that. She put them in a box marked as less expensive and neglected to tell anyone.
Meaning, she isn't excused just because she wanted a box.
That's just silly.
She could have gotten a box and brought it along to the register or asked for one after checkout.
And I haven't shopped Kmart for shoes, but Kohls by me is a disaster zone. However, I can ALWAYS find the right box if I look for it.

Some of you, it seems, have never shopped at Kmart. Their shoe department, no matter the store, is always a disaster. Shoes without boxes, boxes without shoes, items without price tags, mismatched shoes in the boxes.

It's not surprising that something like this happens.

Why does anyone think she is rich? An editor at the WSJ? Big deal. Journalist is a journalist. Just because she writes about wealth doesn't mean she has any.

Besides everyone knows only coloreds steal.

kidding but the fact that i feel the need to point that out, despite the white women comment above, is sad.

Last time I checked, you can get shoe boxes (nice ones without logos) at most container stores...
[www.containerstore.com]
I'm not buying what some of you are selling.
Don't like the condition of the shoe aisle? Don't buy shoes there. A drop in shoe sales is sure to bring some managerial attention to the department.
OR ask for a manager and bring them over.
OR buy yourself some nice shoe boxes so you can feed your shoe addiction cleanly...

@killavanilla: "She put a more expensive pair of shoes in a less expensive box. Then, she failed to mention what she had done. she should have."

Uh ... given the mess that the shoe aisle is in most discount stores I've ever been in, most of the shoes are either not in boxes or are in the wrong box anyway. YOU try matching them up. The store knows the shoe aisle is a mess. If it wants to blame people for not magically knowing what goes where, it should clean that mess up! If the store obviously doesn't care, the customers won't either.

It was a mistake. There's no need to skewer this woman over it. The right answer: look up the shoe model # in the computer, find the right price, and if she was charged too little, explain the fuss and ask her for the difference.

I wouldn't shop there either if I were treated like that over a simple mistake that lots of other people make too.

@philbert: I sure hope you haven't gone back there. I've gotten that kind of attitude copped at me for things not my fault (including a rude pharmacist last night who glowered at me because the guy ahead of me was a rude jerk -- how was that my fault?) and made a point of not shopping at that place again.

@killavanilla: In the original article, she states that she placed the shoes in a box she knew wasn't correct.

No, it does not. RTFA and it says that she found a pair of size 9's not in a box. Then she found the only box in the area for size 9, with a pair of shoes that looked too small for the box. She made some effor to find the right box. She did not say, that box has a cheaper price, so I'll stick it in there to save cash.

@Buran: Dont worry about it, every comment from killavanilla has been trolling to a extent and pretty much blanketly supporting big box retailers. Odds are he's a lacky blogger from some industry group.

This is actually a good time to plug one of my favorite online stores, Zappos.com. Crazy good prices on a huge selection of shoes, outstanding customer service and returns process, and nobody will ever accuse you of putting shoes in a different box.

I never buy clothes online because I think generally you want to see the item in person, and yeah trying shoes on in a store has some benefits, but Zappos is just awesome. I'm a dude, so maybe seeing the shoes in person is more important for the ladies. Anyway, no I don't work for them, know anyone who does, or get any kind of kickback. Just a devoted customer. All the discussion of disaster shoe areas in stores just reminded me of how much I liked buying shoes online.