Re: Remedy To Prevent Shoplifting

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Group 5 minus 1 wrote:
No matter what merchants do,until they have more power to deal w/shoplifting it will continue. A friend told me that the other day while shopping she reported some activity that she thought was suspicious, but the store did nothing.

@Group 5 minus 1

This is how employers want it, and with good reason.

The person shoplifting may be under the influence of any number of drugs, armed in one way or another.

The Loss Prevention employees are the ONLY employees authorized to interact with the source of suspicious activity.

Sales associates have tried to confront a shoplifter and some have paid with their lives. Law suits were filed and the corporate execs wisely decided in the interest of safety, it was better to have someone walk out the door with a few items than employees killed for trying to do "the right thing".

In order to better assure employee safety, if an employee tries to interfere with a shoplifter, they will be terminated. In a weird and stupid way, it makes a lot of sense.

It's crazy stuff, but we live in a crazy world.

Group 5 minus 1 · ‎03-11-2010

@Tinkrbl44 Thank you. It makes me kinda sad.

NYwoman · ‎03-09-2010

Until people elect city and state officials, DAs, and Judges that will carry out laws that will protect the public and arrest and punish ALL the criminals; we will continue to live by the criminals' "laws". I'm tired of my taxes rewarding the criminals and punishing the public and store owners. It's the only way out from this ignorant lunacy.

Lakelife62 · ‎05-09-2023

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@Group 5 minus 1 wrote:
No matter what merchants do,until they have more power to deal w/shoplifting it will continue. A friend told me that the other day while shopping she reported some activity that she thought was suspicious, but the store did nothing.

@Group 5 minus 1

This is how employers want it, and with good reason.

The person shoplifting may be under the influence of any number of drugs, armed in one way or another.

The Loss Prevention employees are the ONLY employees authorized to interact with the source of suspicious activity.

Sales associates have tried to confront a shoplifter and some have paid with their lives. Law suits were filed and the corporate execs wisely decided in the interest of safety, it was better to have someone walk out the door with a few items than employees killed for trying to do "the right thing".

In order to better assure employee safety, if an employee tries to interfere with a shoplifter, they will be terminated. In a weird and stupid way, it makes a lot of sense.

It's crazy stuff, but we live in a crazy world.

Its for the same reason that every note passer who robs a bank is handed the money from the teller drawer with no question. The alarm is not pulled until the robber has left the premises and the doors to the building have been locked. This has been protocol for at least 40 years.

One teller mouthed off to a bank robber and she was smashed in the face with the butt of a gun. She lost her job for endangering every other person including customers in that violent robbery. She sued the bank for her injuries and won.

Businesses have insurance to cover theft. There's no recovering the loss of an employee's life.

CelticCrafter · ‎03-09-2010

@Meowingkitty wrote:
I once went to an Ace Hardware store and my purse is always 9 x 7 or smaller anyway so that's not a big deal. Anyway when I entered the store the clerk informed me I would have to leave my purse behind the counter. I just looked at her and said no way would I let someone I didn't know keep my purse. They were just going to keep it behind the counter and not locked up. I kept walking to my destination. Even if they locked it up I won't go back. No one takes my purse that I don't know. As for leaving it in my car that isn't going to happen either. To many people looking to break into those too. I just won't go back to that establishment. I don't trust you any more than you trust me.

@Meowingkitty I don't know if it's changed but at one time a courthouse in NJ wanted people to leave their bags, brief cases, laptop bags, etc. on an open rack in the hallway before going into the courtroom. Uh, that would be a no...

Lakelife62 · ‎05-09-2023

@NYwoman wrote:
Until people elect city and state officials, DAs, and Judges that will carry out laws that will protect the public and arrest and punish ALL the criminals; we will continue to live by the criminals' "laws". I'm tired of my taxes rewarding the criminals and punishing the public and store owners. It's the only way out from this ignorant lunacy.

When have elected officials stopped shoplifting? I can't remember.

gardenman · ‎03-09-2010

We have some parts of the country where shoplifting up to a certain cash value is more or less allowed. If you know you can take something worth up to $950 and only face, at most, a misdemeanor charge that will likely be dropped, if prosecuted at all, then the state has pretty much made shoplifting legal.

And the number of thefts makes it impossible for the police to investigate them all. It makes it challenging for the courts to handle the many cases appearing before them. How many shoplifters, even the blatant ones, get prosecuted? One in five? One in ten? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?

When Wilson Goode was the mayor of Philadelphia, he declared that they would no longer prosecute first-time car thieves due to prison overcrowding. Well, guess what happened? Car thefts soared. That policy had to be walked back.

The likelihood/certainty of punishment is the deterrent to crime. When you remove that deterrent, crime flourishes. The harsher and more certain the punishment, the less likely someone is to commit the crime. When a government vows not to prosecute someone harshly for committing a crime, or even prosecute them at all, the deterrent disappears.

If the criminally inclined see something they want and know they can take it without a likelihood of ever being held accountable, why shouldn't they take it?

It used to be that stolen goods would need to be fenced and you'd get pennies on the dollar. These days thieves can simply open a storefront on eBay or Amazon and sell the stolen goods themselves for nearly the face value. We've lost the deterrent and made crime much more profitable and safer for the criminal. Maybe that's not the right direction to go in.

Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!

Rockycoast · ‎03-02-2016

Not a big deal nor is it a new concept. When I worked retail many, many years ago our store had a similar policy. No large purses, backpacks or bags. Some did turn away, majority did not mind.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@NYwoman wrote:
Until people elect city and state officials, DAs, and Judges that will carry out laws that will protect the public and arrest and punish ALL the criminals; we will continue to live by the criminals' "laws". I'm tired of my taxes rewarding the criminals and punishing the public and store owners. It's the only way out from this ignorant lunacy.

@NYwoman

I understand your point, but if someone steals a bottle of lotion and walks out with it, at best it's petty theft and perhaps a misdemeanor. It's NOT grand larceny.

Personally, I think crimes have to be prioritized, as we don't have endless jail cells.

Doing a reality check here ..... If there are crimes happening in your area, would you want that last available jail cell to go to a violent offender ... or a shoplifter?

Carmie · ‎10-25-2010

I never shop with a large handbag. I use a small crossbody that I wear under my coat.

I avoid thieves grabbing my bag and avoid having to be told my large bag is not allowed into any venue.

Last spring I went to my granddaughter's graduation. I had a small crossbody bag. I was allowed in without an issue while I watched many women and men being turned away with larger bags and backpacks.

Almost all venues in my area, and there are a lot, do not allow you to enter with large bags and they have you walk through metal detectors.

All of our courthouses and government buildings have restrictions too. You can't even take a bag of any kind in when you visit Pearl Harbour.

I am a world traveler. The no bag or only small bag rule is quite common in other countries, especially in Asia.

This is happening more and more often. I think nothing of it. There is really no reason for me to carry a large bag.

I see this as a non issue. Either comply or move on.