> Sure, specifically, the article says "more than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” -- implying this means it is not organized crime, even if the goods are sold to a large organized fencing operation.
1-2 people shoplifting does not disprove organized crime, particularly if the goods are immediately sold to organized fences.

That paragraph specifically talks about statements made by someone from the Council on Criminal Justice on “smash-and-grab” operations by rings that storm department stores.

It neither confirms or denies anything about organized crime in general.

That said, you seem overly focused on the lack of disproving things, whereas commonly the good practice is to focus on proving things.

For example it’s also not disproven that this is done by retail competitors to hassle competitors, nor is it disproven that space aliens are behind this because they need the merchandise for sustenance. Nor are any multitude of possibilities disproven.

That doesn’t mean it makes sense to entertain such ideas. Even when here and there a PD reports instances of it occurring.
We need something more statistically significant.

> Although videos of “smash-and-grab” rings storming department stores have ratcheted up concern about theft, a recent report by Lopez’s organization found that such incidents “are rare and account for a very small percentage of overall shoplifting,” said the analyst. More than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” he said.

> No, it doesn't. Please read it again. It poses a question of whether it's a sting operation, which seems unlikely given stolen goods have been GPS tracked going to that location and then going to third locations once sold, including by large YouTubers who independently investigated. [1]
The goods are not seized by law enforcement and then returned to owners at that location. The stolen goods are sold, which would be a crime in itself. Seems unlikely that police are on-selling stolen merchandise.

It literally states:

> ABC 7 reached out to Supervisor Dean Preston's office, and they replied with a statement: ""Our office has repeatedly engaged departments about the various challenges on the 300 block of Leavenworth and our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments and the SFPD."

This is a SF legislator states “our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments”, after having contacted various departments.

They’re not saying “we wonder if”, they’re saying that to their knowledge there is a joint operation going on.

As for goods not being seized and returned to their owners, I don’t know what to tell you, other than that’s how sting operations on a bigger scale work. LE is after the people at the top or tried to build a case with high amounts to ensure harsh convictions, they’re not going to jeopardize that by returning a single laptop to their owner.

A quick Google seems to support this notion: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/18k-stolen-goods...

Even when it comes to drugs, which is arguably more dangerous, they often let it go (whether in a controlled manner or not) to build a case against a bigger fish.