6 ms·

>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

>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?
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      No, I’m saying that I would prefer to shop at a store that uses shopkeeper’s privilege to detain thieves using reasonable force. The legal limits are very clear and simply enacting violence “against people who might be thieves” is not within them.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place. I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide whether to draw a weapon, because he clearly would have overpowered me and put me in imminent fear of death. I handed him my receipt with one hand while preparing for the possibility to draw a weapon with the other, thankfully he seemed satisfied and turned out to be a real Walmart employee. I decided I didn't want to ever face that decision again so I never went back
        lostlogin 1y ago
        I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience. I live in New Zealand.
        mothballed 1y ago
        I said weapon, not gun, but theoretically if it were a gun, it wouldn't feel any different than shopping without one. Put a small watergun down your waistband and walk around for a couple days. After a couple you won't notice it, and no one else is going to notice it either. It will become utterly mundane, it similarly applies to a dagger or whatever concealable weapon one may be able to get ahold of.
        1659447091 1y ago
  - op00to 1y ago
    > just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      I have a hard time imagining why they would close profitable stores otherwise. They’re generally not in the business of turning down profit.
      - op00to 1y ago
        The point isn't that businesses are closing profitable stores, but the stores are unprofitable for reasons other than shrinkage. You're being fed a narrative about crime. Why? Who benefits? > Finally, corporate claims are not holding up to scrutiny, and are being used to close stores that are essential assets for many communities. For instance, the CEO of Walgreens has acknowledged that perhaps retailers “cried too much last year” and overspent on security measures that failed to reflect real needs. And although the National Retail Federation said that “organized retail crime” drove nearly half of all inventory losses in 2021, the group later retracted its claim; it now no longer attaches a dollar amount to money that is lost due to retail theft. And in memorable cases, major retailers have chosen to maintain stores with much higher rates of crime, while closing others. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities-separating-fact-from-fiction/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities...
    - alsetmusic 1y ago
      Target closed stores under this excuse last year. One was in downtown Oakland, where I can easily believe it (large unhoused population). Multiple news stories reported that this was only a cover to close underperforming stores and not the primary reason for closures.
MisterTea 1y ago
> There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. Bit of an assumption there. There is no easy answer for this breakdown. The cat is out of the bag and these losers aren't going to stop unless they are stopped and face real consequences. Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance. Of course that doesn't stop anything and quality of life goes down.
- autoexec 1y ago
  > Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance. Stores have plenty of incentives to engage in privacy invading surveillance even ignoring shoplifting as a factor. If a store saw zero shoplifting they'd still deploy privacy invading surveillance because it's profitable for them to do it right now and it will only be increasingly profitable for them to do it in the near future.
conradev 1y ago
You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense: https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-convicted-assault-shoplifter-attack.amp https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...
- mothballed 1y ago
  That's gonna depend where the jury is coming from. SF, yes. "Try that in a small town" hicks probably not.
  - ecshafer 1y ago
    Why don't people from SF also get a pejorative?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Because they are here to defend themselves.
  - amy_petrik 1y ago
    more like "try that in a small town" police will see what happened, "atta boy" and get on with other things. never even reaches the courts.
  - EasyMark 1y ago
    you can use a reasonable amount of force to prevent people from taking property (or if you're acting as an agent thereof) in Texas. But still you can always be taken to civil court and be at the mercy of whatever judge. I imagine in San Francisco you will almost certainly lose to the criminal who was stealing something if you use any amount of force other than to defend yourself unless you're a cop

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?
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    No, I’m saying that I would prefer to shop at a store that uses shopkeeper’s privilege to detain thieves using reasonable force. The legal limits are very clear and simply enacting violence “against people who might be thieves” is not within them.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place. I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide whether to draw a weapon, because he clearly would have overpowered me and put me in imminent fear of death. I handed him my receipt with one hand while preparing for the possibility to draw a weapon with the other, thankfully he seemed satisfied and turned out to be a real Walmart employee. I decided I didn't want to ever face that decision again so I never went back
      - lostlogin 1y ago
        I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience. I live in New Zealand.
        mothballed 1y ago
        I said weapon, not gun, but theoretically if it were a gun, it wouldn't feel any different than shopping without one. Put a small watergun down your waistband and walk around for a couple days. After a couple you won't notice it, and no one else is going to notice it either. It will become utterly mundane, it similarly applies to a dagger or whatever concealable weapon one may be able to get ahold of.
        1659447091 1y ago
- op00to 1y ago
  > just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    I have a hard time imagining why they would close profitable stores otherwise. They’re generally not in the business of turning down profit.
    - op00to 1y ago
      The point isn't that businesses are closing profitable stores, but the stores are unprofitable for reasons other than shrinkage. You're being fed a narrative about crime. Why? Who benefits? > Finally, corporate claims are not holding up to scrutiny, and are being used to close stores that are essential assets for many communities. For instance, the CEO of Walgreens has acknowledged that perhaps retailers “cried too much last year” and overspent on security measures that failed to reflect real needs. And although the National Retail Federation said that “organized retail crime” drove nearly half of all inventory losses in 2021, the group later retracted its claim; it now no longer attaches a dollar amount to money that is lost due to retail theft. And in memorable cases, major retailers have chosen to maintain stores with much higher rates of crime, while closing others. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities-separating-fact-from-fiction/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities...
  - alsetmusic 1y ago
    Target closed stores under this excuse last year. One was in downtown Oakland, where I can easily believe it (large unhoused population). Multiple news stories reported that this was only a cover to close underperforming stores and not the primary reason for closures.

MisterTea 1y ago

> There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. Bit of an assumption there. There is no easy answer for this breakdown. The cat is out of the bag and these losers aren't going to stop unless they are stopped and face real consequences. Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance. Of course that doesn't stop anything and quality of life goes down.

autoexec 1y ago
> Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance. Stores have plenty of incentives to engage in privacy invading surveillance even ignoring shoplifting as a factor. If a store saw zero shoplifting they'd still deploy privacy invading surveillance because it's profitable for them to do it right now and it will only be increasingly profitable for them to do it in the near future.

conradev 1y ago

You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense: https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-convicted-assault-shoplifter-attack.amp https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...

mothballed 1y ago
That's gonna depend where the jury is coming from. SF, yes. "Try that in a small town" hicks probably not.
- ecshafer 1y ago
  Why don't people from SF also get a pejorative?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Because they are here to defend themselves.
- amy_petrik 1y ago
  more like "try that in a small town" police will see what happened, "atta boy" and get on with other things. never even reaches the courts.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  you can use a reasonable amount of force to prevent people from taking property (or if you're acting as an agent thereof) in Texas. But still you can always be taken to civil court and be at the mercy of whatever judge. I imagine in San Francisco you will almost certainly lose to the criminal who was stealing something if you use any amount of force other than to defend yourself unless you're a cop