7 ms·

> yet bearded street person with big trash bag full of product makes them think of lovable Santa? They do not want to confront trash bag man for good reason. W

> yet bearded street person with big trash bag full of product makes them think of lovable Santa? They do not want to confront trash bag man for good reason. What happened is people who don't give a fuck and have no problem with using violence realized there's nothing stopping them from loading up bags of goods and walking out of the store. "Oh you want to stop me? just try mother fucker." Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that. Never mind these guards are paid very little and are nothing more than security theater. Pull a gun and those guys are going to be no more a guard than the cashier or a person in line. The stores are left to fend for themselves as cops these days seem to care less and less. So I am not surprised they are employing all sorts of janky tactics to prevent loss.

bee_rider 1y ago
Plus, like everybody in retail, LP’s measured performance indicator is how busy they look when management is around. The best way to do that without getting in a fight is to annoy people who don’t actually have anything to hide.
- rob74 1y ago
  That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Also: Local cops spend their time going after speeders and parking violators who they know won't be dangerous and they can safely farm for revenue, instead of looking for violent crime.
  - nomdep 1y ago
    > And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal... Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?
    - throwway120385 1y ago
      Immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's not a crime per se to overstay a visa like say shoplifting or killing someone. It's more like there's a proceeding to determine whether you did overstay and then when there's a finding of fact they basically tell you you have to leave or they remove you from the country forcibly. It would be patently ridiculous to jail someone for overstaying or for working on a tourist visa or for any of a number of these things.
      - matt-attack 1y ago
        You cannot be more wrong. Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry. I would love to understand if you truly believed that no such federal statute exists, or we’re just intentionally spreading misinformation.
        selimthegrim 1y ago
        That is manifestly not the same thing as overstaying a visa. Moreover, not only does it not apply if you’re already found to be in the country illegally you have to be caught in the act of entering - it was amended in 1996 to apply a civil penalty by the same act that created expedited removal (yes, it is not supposed to be in lieu of any statutory criminal penalty that _may_ be applied) and lower court judges have found against the re-entry provisions in 1326 [1] [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitutional-immigration-law https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitu...
        godelski 1y ago
        The visa is your entry document. The I-94 is your status document[0]. The visa outlines the conditions (including dates) you may enter the country. The I-94 is the record of entry/departure and dictate your required date of departure. > This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry. This is a completely different conversation and scenario that what was being previously discussed. There is a pretty significant difference between illegal border crossing vs overstaying your status. The latter never performed an illegal border crossing. These people are documented. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldeparture-record-information-for-completing-uscis-forms https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldepar...
  - matt-attack 1y ago
    It’s not ICE’s opinion about who is illegal, it’s congress’s. Didn’t they create the immigration laws that are on the books? I can never understand why people seem to blame the enforcement agencies for the laws they are enforcing. But I agree with the sentiment that they are selecting the easiest targets.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      ICE can make them un-illegal by granting them parole, without further action from congress. AFAIK they can even do it unilaterally, though congress could choose to check them later.
hollerith 1y ago
>Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that. There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. (There are many more who don't actively enjoy it, but don't mind engaging in it and consider being competent at violence an important part of being a man.) The pharmacy gives its security guards instruction not to use violence because they don't want to get sued when a guard seriously injures a thief: it is impossible at the scale of a chain of stores to subdue and detain thieves without some risk of killing some thief or seriously injuring him.
- tehwebguy 1y ago
  Or maybe they just don’t want any violence in their stores at all? I will avoid shopping somewhere that has regular ass whoopings way more than I would avoid shopping somewhere with regular shoplifting.
  - peaseagee 1y ago
    So I guess you've never frequented Waffle House ;-)
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    What are they supposed to do, just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely? I’d rather shop at a store that actually prevents theft, deterring future thieves from stealing. It will be a safer place to shop with lower prices.
    - brookst 1y ago
      Are you saying you would continue shopping in a store where you regularly saw violence against people who might be thieves, on the assumption you’d never be mistaken for one?
      - 1y ago
dkiebd 1y ago
Don't know how it is in the states but in most places in Europe using violence against a violent person is likely to end up very badly for you, even if you are a guard and have the necessary permits and training. You are not going to risk being fined or jailed to stop some criminal from shoplifting from a store that is not even yours.
- y-curious 1y ago
  What is the role of a security guard if not to wield violence? Their equipment implies a capability for violence. Are they unable to perform their job legally in Europe?
  - dkiebd 1y ago
    If you want to risk hurting someone whilst restraining him… Otherwise, it’s not worth it. What equipment are you talking about anyway, the nightstick? In my language it is formally called the “defensa”, implying that it can’t be used to attack someone.
  - dfxm12 1y ago
    Security theater. Intimidation. Calling the cops. Insurance requirements. Neither stores nor the guard want to escalate a situation to a violent situation. The stores don't want bad press or liability for collateral damage. The security guard isn't trying to put their body on the line for some merchandise. Yeah, maybe you have a cowboy looking for trouble, but based on my experience talking/working with some guards, I'd be surprised if they are instructed to get physically involved.
  - lokar 1y ago
    They are there to intervene when there is violence against a person, not property.
  - cwillu 1y ago
    There's a reason local rent-a-cops here hire almost exclusively seniors: they're _not_ going to go chasing someone down, they're just going to follow instructions, go for their walk around the site every 30 minutes and generally not cause trouble when they get bored.
adamrezich 1y ago
Maybe there was something to the high-trust society we once had. Perhaps it had something going for it that we lost when we decided to forsake it.
- boppo1 1y ago
  And how did we 'forsake' it?
  - adamrezich 1y ago
    When my mom attended the same high school I graduated from, in the 70s, kids who were hunters would leave firearms in racks on the back of their pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Not only did said firearms never once get stolen or used to shoot anyone, but, such a thing was simply unthinkable. When I attended the same high school in the 00s, we once were put on a district-wide lockdown because some kid at the other high school all the way across town had inadvertently left his paintball gun in the back seat of his (locked) car—after a weekend of fun in the woods with his friends—in the school parking lot, and a security officer saw it. Now, today, we get periodic local PSAs urging people to not leave firearms in their locked cars in their own driveways at night, because people are breaking into cars, stealing the guns, and using them to commit crimes. I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something here has been forsaken. That the way things were a mere ~50 years ago seems unthinkably impossible today clearly speaks volumes.
    - MisterTea 1y ago
      > I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something was forsaken. I cant sum it up properly but three things come to mind: Fear - we have been filled with fear, this in turn leads to more people forsaking responsibility and wanting the government to act as a nanny to protect them, which leads to a lot of childish behavior whether it be people acting helpless or people aping being big and tough. So fear leading to a lack of responsibility leading to childish behavior. This makes people more self centered and less considerate of others around them. Edit, to add: This lack of responsibility is also tied to legal liability of being sued. Cant take down a crook because they might get hurt and sue which makes me wonder what kind of legal system we have which ignores the irresponsible act of criminality. To me it's "live and die by the sword" - you fuck around and you find out. Of course this can be reversed, a person taking action against a criminal can be hurt and then who is responsible? The liability cuts deeply both ways. There is no way to win unless that changes or we install a safety net.
qingcharles 1y ago
I know of a Walmart shelf stacker who ran after someone who grabbed a $5 hat on their way out. They had a run-in with the getaway car and ended up in a coma for two months and Walmart had to spend over $2m in medical bills. (the offenders were caught by police later that day, so it really wasn't worth the trouble to run after them)
- mmmlinux 1y ago
  If a hit and run hadn't been involved they wouldn't have gotten caught.
  - qingcharles 1y ago
    It's something I've thought about. It's not totally clear from the police reports. I've read them through several times and the offender had hit about seven stores that day tearing off Rogaine en masse, and the cops seemed to be on their trail already. The hit-n-run certainly would have put a flame up their ass.
radixdiaboli 1y ago
Someone has never worked retail. They know they can get away with it because pretty much any corporate store has a policy that employees can't try to stop them. An employee at a local REI was fired for trying to stop one of the daily thefts they were having. Point being, willingness to engage in violence has nothing to do with it.

bee_rider 1y ago

Plus, like everybody in retail, LP’s measured performance indicator is how busy they look when management is around. The best way to do that without getting in a fight is to annoy people who don’t actually have anything to hide.

rob74 1y ago
That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Also: Local cops spend their time going after speeders and parking violators who they know won't be dangerous and they can safely farm for revenue, instead of looking for violent crime.
- nomdep 1y ago
  > And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal... Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?
  - throwway120385 1y ago
    Immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's not a crime per se to overstay a visa like say shoplifting or killing someone. It's more like there's a proceeding to determine whether you did overstay and then when there's a finding of fact they basically tell you you have to leave or they remove you from the country forcibly. It would be patently ridiculous to jail someone for overstaying or for working on a tourist visa or for any of a number of these things.
    - matt-attack 1y ago
      You cannot be more wrong. Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry. I would love to understand if you truly believed that no such federal statute exists, or we’re just intentionally spreading misinformation.
      - selimthegrim 1y ago
        That is manifestly not the same thing as overstaying a visa. Moreover, not only does it not apply if you’re already found to be in the country illegally you have to be caught in the act of entering - it was amended in 1996 to apply a civil penalty by the same act that created expedited removal (yes, it is not supposed to be in lieu of any statutory criminal penalty that _may_ be applied) and lower court judges have found against the re-entry provisions in 1326 [1] [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitutional-immigration-law https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitu...
      - godelski 1y ago
        The visa is your entry document. The I-94 is your status document[0]. The visa outlines the conditions (including dates) you may enter the country. The I-94 is the record of entry/departure and dictate your required date of departure. > This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry. This is a completely different conversation and scenario that what was being previously discussed. There is a pretty significant difference between illegal border crossing vs overstaying your status. The latter never performed an illegal border crossing. These people are documented. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldeparture-record-information-for-completing-uscis-forms https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldepar...
- matt-attack 1y ago
  It’s not ICE’s opinion about who is illegal, it’s congress’s. Didn’t they create the immigration laws that are on the books? I can never understand why people seem to blame the enforcement agencies for the laws they are enforcing. But I agree with the sentiment that they are selecting the easiest targets.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    ICE can make them un-illegal by granting them parole, without further action from congress. AFAIK they can even do it unilaterally, though congress could choose to check them later.

hollerith 1y ago

>Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that. There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. (There are many more who don't actively enjoy it, but don't mind engaging in it and consider being competent at violence an important part of being a man.) The pharmacy gives its security guards instruction not to use violence because they don't want to get sued when a guard seriously injures a thief: it is impossible at the scale of a chain of stores to subdue and detain thieves without some risk of killing some thief or seriously injuring him.

tehwebguy 1y ago
Or maybe they just don’t want any violence in their stores at all? I will avoid shopping somewhere that has regular ass whoopings way more than I would avoid shopping somewhere with regular shoplifting.
- peaseagee 1y ago
  So I guess you've never frequented Waffle House ;-)
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  What are they supposed to do, just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely? I’d rather shop at a store that actually prevents theft, deterring future thieves from stealing. It will be a safer place to shop with lower prices.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Are you saying you would continue shopping in a store where you regularly saw violence against people who might be thieves, on the assumption you’d never be mistaken for one?
    - 1y ago

dkiebd 1y ago

Don't know how it is in the states but in most places in Europe using violence against a violent person is likely to end up very badly for you, even if you are a guard and have the necessary permits and training. You are not going to risk being fined or jailed to stop some criminal from shoplifting from a store that is not even yours.

y-curious 1y ago
What is the role of a security guard if not to wield violence? Their equipment implies a capability for violence. Are they unable to perform their job legally in Europe?
- dkiebd 1y ago
  If you want to risk hurting someone whilst restraining him… Otherwise, it’s not worth it. What equipment are you talking about anyway, the nightstick? In my language it is formally called the “defensa”, implying that it can’t be used to attack someone.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  Security theater. Intimidation. Calling the cops. Insurance requirements. Neither stores nor the guard want to escalate a situation to a violent situation. The stores don't want bad press or liability for collateral damage. The security guard isn't trying to put their body on the line for some merchandise. Yeah, maybe you have a cowboy looking for trouble, but based on my experience talking/working with some guards, I'd be surprised if they are instructed to get physically involved.
- lokar 1y ago
  They are there to intervene when there is violence against a person, not property.
- cwillu 1y ago
  There's a reason local rent-a-cops here hire almost exclusively seniors: they're _not_ going to go chasing someone down, they're just going to follow instructions, go for their walk around the site every 30 minutes and generally not cause trouble when they get bored.

adamrezich 1y ago

Maybe there was something to the high-trust society we once had. Perhaps it had something going for it that we lost when we decided to forsake it.

boppo1 1y ago
And how did we 'forsake' it?
- adamrezich 1y ago
  When my mom attended the same high school I graduated from, in the 70s, kids who were hunters would leave firearms in racks on the back of their pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Not only did said firearms never once get stolen or used to shoot anyone, but, such a thing was simply unthinkable. When I attended the same high school in the 00s, we once were put on a district-wide lockdown because some kid at the other high school all the way across town had inadvertently left his paintball gun in the back seat of his (locked) car—after a weekend of fun in the woods with his friends—in the school parking lot, and a security officer saw it. Now, today, we get periodic local PSAs urging people to not leave firearms in their locked cars in their own driveways at night, because people are breaking into cars, stealing the guns, and using them to commit crimes. I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something here has been forsaken. That the way things were a mere ~50 years ago seems unthinkably impossible today clearly speaks volumes.
  - MisterTea 1y ago
    > I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something was forsaken. I cant sum it up properly but three things come to mind: Fear - we have been filled with fear, this in turn leads to more people forsaking responsibility and wanting the government to act as a nanny to protect them, which leads to a lot of childish behavior whether it be people acting helpless or people aping being big and tough. So fear leading to a lack of responsibility leading to childish behavior. This makes people more self centered and less considerate of others around them. Edit, to add: This lack of responsibility is also tied to legal liability of being sued. Cant take down a crook because they might get hurt and sue which makes me wonder what kind of legal system we have which ignores the irresponsible act of criminality. To me it's "live and die by the sword" - you fuck around and you find out. Of course this can be reversed, a person taking action against a criminal can be hurt and then who is responsible? The liability cuts deeply both ways. There is no way to win unless that changes or we install a safety net.

qingcharles 1y ago

I know of a Walmart shelf stacker who ran after someone who grabbed a $5 hat on their way out. They had a run-in with the getaway car and ended up in a coma for two months and Walmart had to spend over $2m in medical bills. (the offenders were caught by police later that day, so it really wasn't worth the trouble to run after them)

mmmlinux 1y ago
If a hit and run hadn't been involved they wouldn't have gotten caught.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  It's something I've thought about. It's not totally clear from the police reports. I've read them through several times and the offender had hit about seven stores that day tearing off Rogaine en masse, and the cops seemed to be on their trail already. The hit-n-run certainly would have put a flame up their ass.

radixdiaboli 1y ago

Someone has never worked retail. They know they can get away with it because pretty much any corporate store has a policy that employees can't try to stop them. An employee at a local REI was fired for trying to stop one of the daily thefts they were having. Point being, willingness to engage in violence has nothing to do with it.