You Didn't Search Her Well Enough

It was just a month or so ago that I brought you the charming tale of a couple of super-sized women who were arrested for shoplifting many, many items by concealing the items 'neath their rolls of fat. Oh, and I can tell by the gagging sounds you just emitted that you remember said story all too well. So I guess you'd better brace yourself for this one, as it is quite similar in method to the previous story. I'm still trying to figure out some of the finer points to this story, but maybe you can help me out with some of them. Let's find out!

What we have is a story from the fine folks at CBS Minnesota (that's in Minnesota). It would seem that our "hero", a one Stephanie Moreland, was arrested on New Year's Eve under suspicion of stealing a $6,500 "short mink coat" from the Alaskan Fur Company. Now, when they say a "short mink coat", is that supposed to imply that the coat is not very long or that it was made from rather diminutive minks? I'm not sure, either.

Ms. Moreland was confronted in the store, but denied having taken said coat of mink. When she left the store, the clerk wrote down her license plate number and called police. The police tracked down the car and found a hanger from the store in the car. The article claims that "They searched her for weapons and booked her into their jail for the weekend on theft charges." Uh-huh. Yeah, I'm not quite so sure that she was really "searched'. I'm pretty sure that she was not "searched" sufficiently.

OK, so she's been in jail for a couple of days when "Three days later, a detective interviewed Moreland who admitted she stole the coat but claim she had already sold it." It's unclear to me why she admitted to the theft at that point. Maybe she thought they were going to let her go or something. I don't know, but she had carried on her little scheme to this point, I don't see why she didn't just keep going with it a little bit longer. Wait. What?

That's right. I said "her scheme". You weren't really buying any of that stuff that she was spewing out, were you? Oh, come on! She stole the coat all right. But she didn't sell it. I kind of wish that she had though. That's because (wait for it) "When the investigator informed Moreland he would be sending her to the Hennepin County Jail downtown, he was shocked when she lifted up her dress and pulled out the mink coat from her underwear." Oh. My. God.

Pulled the mink coat from her underwear?! What the what?! How big is this ol' gal again? Let's see...it says that she's 270 pounds. It does not list a height. I'm guessing that if she can conceal an entire mink coat, short or not, inside of her underwear, she can't be more than four feet tall. Good Lord, woman. And it was in there for three days?! How is that possible? What is going on over there at the jail in Minnesota? Clearly whatever it is, it does not involve thorough body searches at all.

The Bloomington Police Commander, a one Mark Stehlik, explained that “She had modified her underwear. She actually cut the rear of the underwear out so that from the back it appeared she was not wearing underwear and then stuffed it down the front.” What does that even mean? Cut out the rear of her underwear? I get that, but what does that have to do with it being able to appear that she's not wearing underwear? How does not appearing to wear underwear from the rear make it so it doesn't appear that you have a $6,500 short mink coat shoved down your front? Why does it matter if someone else thinks that she is wearing underwear or not? Is that some sort of a "thing" in the shoplifting community? I'm so confused. Three days of underwear mink?! (No, that is not a euphemism.) I hope they burned that thing after she pulled it out of...there.

There are really a lot of unanswered questions here. I realize that. But there's only so much I can do. If you know anything about this apparent underwear altering which is seemingly conducive to shoplifting, let me know.

The Fat Folds Of Christmas

OK, so it's officially the Christmas/holiday shopping season and people are out in full swing. And you know how you get when you're really doing a lot of Christmas shopping. You end up with bags and bags of stuff and not enough hands to hold them. Maybe sometimes you wish that you had another way to hold all of your newly begotten wares. Maybe sometimes you even wish that you didn't have to pay for things at all. And that's when you go back to thinking about how you wish you had another way to hold things that you didn't want to pay for. That's probably when you decide at the time that it's a good idea to attempt to conceal merchandise underneath your breasts (that must have been the size of Canada) and fat rolls as you walk out of an Oklahoma TJ Maxx. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 28-year old Ailene Brown and a one 37-year old Shmeco Thomas. (I'm guessing that "Shmeco" is pronounced phonetically, since someone clearly neglected to buy a vowel at some point during the naming process. And it would be remiss if I did not point out that Shmeco kind of sounds a little bit like and looks a little bit like the word Shamu. And that this story is about people concealing things underneath their body fat makes it sound all that more whale like!) Behold!

If you're wondering which one is which, Shamu Shmeco is the one that looks like Kenan Thompson from Saturday Night Live.

Now that we all know who's who, let's continue. It would appear that the two aforementioned ladies were shopping at a TJ Maxx in Edmond, Oklahoma. According to The Orlando Sentinel, "...police say they used their bodies to conceal the goods. Edmond police authorities say it was at the Edmond TJ Maxx that loss prevention officers found the duo stuffing items under their belly fat and breasts." Stuffing items. Underneath...their...belly fat and...(I don't know if I can go on without hurling)....breasts. Good Lord, I think I'm going to be sick.

Yep, just tucked a few things away in there for safe keeping, I guess. What the what?! If you're big enough that you can stick things in between your mammoth rolls of fat and have them not fall out or (hopefully) be discovered, how large are you exactly? What is the surface area of your body? What is your getaway car? A Rascal scooter because you're too fat to walk? Seriously now. There has to be more to this story than just this. Are they sure?

Oh, yeah. They're sure. (Whoever those loss prevention folks are, I certainly hope that they get a raise of some sort. I would not have wanted to be a part of this.) According to a one Officer James Hamm, "These two were actually concealing them in areas of their body where excess skin was, under their chest area and armpits." I think I'm going to be sick again. Do you want to know what they were trying to steal? Do you? Really? What if I told you that there were multiple items? Then would you still want to know? I'll wait. Let's say that you do (but don't say I didn't warn you). That's when I'd have to tell you that they tried to steal four pairs of boots, three pairs of jeans, a wallet and some gloves. Wait a minute.

Boots?! They were sticking boots under their boobs?! Boob boots?! Ewww! And did I mention ewww?! What kind of boots? Hiking boots? Those spiky heeled boots that no one I know could ever possibly wear, yet I see them in stores all over the place? What kind of boots? And three pairs of jeans? Look, I've only seen the heads of these ladies, but if this story is any indication of their actual size, those jeans must have been made by Omar the Tentmaker if they were picking them up for themselves. And what's with the wallet? Clearly, they don't have anything to put in it. Was it an impulse steal? At the register that they attempted to bypass?

According to the officer on the video (handily provided below) one of the women actually had three boots concealed underneath her breast and bra. Three boots...two boobs...you do the math! (I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm still a little in shock by all of this and usually when numbers get thrown around, there's math involved. My apologies.) Where were the other...five boots?! If you've got hoots big enough for three boots to be stuffed under there, those are some pretty big hoots! Good Lord, woman.

I think that we really need to take a moment to soak in just how many items we are talking about here. Thus, I have prepared this handy visual aid to help with that task. Behold!

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty darn sure that I could not conceal a single shoe anywhere on my body in the fashion that these two ladies did. But somehow, they managed to stuff eight boots in their somehow AND some jeans on top of that! And even once you have the eight boots concealed on your person, you're just getting started! You've still got three pairs of jeans, gloves and a wallet to go! And yes, I realize that the story said that just one of the woman had the three boots concealed underneath her hoots. Where were the other five boots?! Huh?! That means the other chick had the other five stashed about under her folds of...of...skin. Ugh.

People never cease to amaze. Or in this case, they never crease to amaze me. I know, I know. It's a poor play on words. Especially since we're all dealing with the mental image of all of those boots with boob sweat all over them. What? You hadn't thought of that? Well, think of it now because you know that's what happened! Here's to hoping that none of that merchandise was placed back on the shelf and was instead taken out back and burned in some sort of ritual. The video of this story is below. It's pretty much what I've already described, but perhaps you want to hear it for yourself.

Thou Shalt Not Steal Most of the Time

Can I call a priest a moron? What if he really actually is a moron? Then can I? Since there aren't really any rules for this sort of thing, I'm going to take it upon myself to assume that I can call him an moron and thus, I'm going to do so. You might even agree with me and want to call him a moron yourself. You can wait to make that decision until after you've read the gist of this ordeal if you'd like. I, however, am fully in the gist and will not wait any longer. You, sir, are a moron.

Today our story of moronism takes us across the pond to jolly old England and to the Church of St. Lawrence. (If you're on some sort of sightseeing expedition and would like to add this to your stops, that's in the northern English city of York.) According to a one Theunis Bates over there at Sphere, the Rev. Tim Jones presented his parishoners with an interesting direction for them to go forth and do with. According to the extremely misguided Rev. Jones, he explained to his parishoners that "...poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging." Um, wait. What now?

Correct. If you're poor, you should steal. Don't pimp yourself (or hooker yourself) out. Don't be burgling. Don't be mugging. Just be stealing. Plain old stealing. Hallelujiah! Let's go steal! Not so fast! It's not like he didn't realize that this would be controversial or anything. (Hmmm....I wonder if he realized how stupid it would sound. I'm guessing not. Continue.) He laid down some ground rules. Oh, good. Ground rules for...stealing? Yes! Ground rules for stealing, that is correct. OK, then. Let's look at those.

Stealing Rule One: "...do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices." Um, wait ! That's all they have to do to make this OK with you?! To know that the rest of us are going to get screwed by higher prices as a result of Stealy McTakes-A-Lot over there?! That's it!? Tell me something. What, exactly, is all of this "knowing" supposed to accomplish? See, because usually, when you "know" something, it's so that you won't do it. "Just so you know, you cannot fly. Thus, if you jump out of that window, you will meet your splattery doom." That makes sense to know. But I don't know what good it is to "know" something if you're going to go ahead and do it anyway! "Just so you know, you're screwing over everyone else whose tax dollars are likely already enabling you to survive. Now shove this smoked ham underneath your coat and make a run for it!"

Stealing Rule Two: Rev. Jones says "I would ask them not to take any more than they need..." Uh, Rev? Ever been poor? I don't think that you have. You'd be amazed at how much you "need" when you have "nothing". You'd also be amazed at how much you "need" when you're being enabled to "justify" stealing. While it may be true that some may "need" food, does that automatically mean that they "need" prime rib? What about lobster? What about super buttery crackers, not just Saltines? You'd be amazed at what folks think that they "need" when they're being told "Go forth, my son, and rip off thine vendors."

Stealing Rule Three: This is the second part of Stealing Rule Two which was "I would ask them not to take any more than they need....for any longer than they need." What does that even mean? For any longer than they need? Does that mean only keep something that you've stolen for as long as you need it? (Tell me how that's going to work with this purseful of pork loin that I just pilfered.) Or does that mean to only steal as long as you need to steal (as outlined by the Reverend's guidelines, I suppose)? Do you know what the difference is between the time that it takes to steal something and the time that it takes to go to work every day, earn a paycheck, cash that paycheck and then go buy that thing? It's a lopsided comparison at best!

I'm sure that you can imagine that this didn't sit too well with folks like law enforcement and UK retailers, including something called the British Retail Consortium. (Now, I don't know what that is, but it's a really cool name. Consortium. Is that anything like a well-organized militia?) The Consortium's speaker, a one Krishan Rama, said "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong...There are no excuses for stealing." A novel concept indeed.

As you can imagine (or, at the very least, hope) this whole thieving ideology didn't really sit well with Reverend Jones's boss. No, not that boss (though I'd have to imagine that he was none too thrilled himself), but rather the flesh and bones boss, a one Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. (I wonder, if you are an Archdeacon, does that automatically make you venerable? I have no idea. I don't even know how one becomes an Archdeacon. It sounds kind of cool, though. It has a sort of superhero ring to it. The Archdeacon of York is here to save the daaaaayy!) He tried to distance himself from the remarks of Reverend Jones by saying "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way." Finally! Someone with some sense over there in York!

But wait! Here's the best part! According to the above cited article, the Reverend later clarified his position on some British TV show. He said, in part,that he "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." Wait. You never said it was OK to steal?! But there were rules! Three of them from what I inferred! It is "dreadful", but you said go for it! What do you mean you never said that?!

He said that "The sermon was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store." Wait. How was it meant to do that? I'm not following you here. According to the Yorkshire Evening Post, you said, "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift." Huh. See, that doesn't really sound like encouraging worshippers to do anything other than steal things. Where does the encouragement for giving to charity come in? Oh, that's right. It doesn't!

This whole thing is wrong on so many levels. There's the stealing in and of itself to begin with. I think we've covered that one. But next is that now we have a priest who is lying to us! I don't think priests are supposed to lie! (I also don't think that they're supposed to be spending all of that time with those altar boys either, but that's an entirely different subject!) You really can't infer a whole lot from "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift" other than what it says! He might as well have just said "That was taken out of context." What context?! You said steal!

But here's the part that just kills me. People who are poor, just like every other kind of people, come in two kinds. There are poor people who are smart and there are poor people who are just dumb as a post. Of those who are more likely to heed such a ridiculous suggestion, I'm going to guess it would most likely be the paste eaters. Tell me something, Reverend. Just exactly how good do you think these sorts of folks are going to be at all of the stealing? Seriously. He makes the assumption that if he tells folks to steal, that God is just going to guide them into doing it correctly and getting away with it. Just because you steal something, that doesn't mean that it's going to turn out the way you want it (that way being that you don't get caught and you get your stolen item for free instead of having to work for it like the rest of us, you thieving thief). You clearly didn't think this one through, Clem. Er, Reverend Clem.

So let's just assume (making it a given would be presumptuous) that one of these divinely inspired shoplifters doesn't make it through the front door with that lobster tail hanging out of their pocket and that package of frozen peas in their boots (I'm envisioning big boots, so stay with me here). Then what? I don't know about how things work in the UK, but over here in America, we arrest people for things like that. A lot of the time, they go to jail until they are bailed out. How much money do you think Thief-y von Petty Theft over there is going to have to put towards his bail? I'm guessing if he couldn't pay for that smoked salmon in his shorts, he isn't going to have a whole heck of a lot for bail, either. Then what?

I know! Call Reverend Jones! He'll come bail you out! He's the one that suggested that you steal from businesses in the first place! I'm sure that his congregation won't mind their collection plate dues going to bail out an obedient member of their flock! Sure! No problem! Then again, how much of a flock is he going to have left after this debacle? Right. Probably the same size of a flock as he had before he became the poster child for holiday looting, not to mention holiday scrambling and lying. Whatever. As long as he and his pilfering flock stay on that side of the pond, I won't have to worry about it on this side of the pond. Dear God! Unless he's put his message on YouTube!