Comment by MisterTea

Comment by MisterTea 3 days ago

85 replies

> 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.

hollerith 3 days 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 3 days 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.

    • frumplestlatz 3 days 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 3 days 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?

      • op00to 2 days 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.

    • peaseagee 3 days ago

      So I guess you've never frequented Waffle House ;-)

  • conradev 3 days ago

    You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense:

    https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...

    • mothballed 3 days ago

      That's gonna depend where the jury is coming from. SF, yes. "Try that in a small town" hicks probably not.

      • EasyMark 2 days 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

      • amy_petrik 2 days 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.

      • ecshafer 3 days ago

        Why don't people from SF also get a pejorative?

  • MisterTea 3 days 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 2 days 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.

bee_rider 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days ago

      > And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal...

      Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

      • nobody9999 3 days ago

        >> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal...

        >Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

        It is not[0].

        Being present in the US without legal status is a civil infraction and not a crime. Unlawful entry is a criminal act however.

        That said, the vast majority of undocumented folks entered the US legally and overstayed their visas. Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

        Those who made an (whether valid or not) asylum claim are legally in the United States until their asylum claim can be adjudicated.

        [0] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...

      • valleyer 3 days ago

        No. Overstaying a visa or not leaving when temporary protected status is suddenly revoked (or asylum is not granted) is not a criminal offense under US federal law.

        • godelski 3 days ago

          Technically it is all about status since a visa is about entry. Like the date on your visa is the window you have to enter the country but you'd have an I-94 or some status forum that dictates the parameters of your stay. (though yeah, everyone just calls this "overstaying your visa") (IANAL but have travel abroad before and well... I was in grad school and conversations about visa and status come up a lot when the majority of students have temporary status and there's a president talking about changing the rules)

      • throwway120385 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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.

dkiebd 3 days 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 3 days 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?

    • dfxm12 3 days 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.

    • dkiebd 3 days 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.

    • cwillu 2 days 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.

    • lokar 3 days ago

      They are there to intervene when there is violence against a person, not property.

  • bevhill 3 days ago

    Violence is okay to perpetrate, but not to respond with. A violent person will probably get it out of their system quickly. If you fight them, though, that creates a feedback loop that won't stop until someone is injured or dead. Just let people express themselves and everyone will be fine.

    • Bearstrike 3 days ago

      At first glance I read this as a troll comment. But with your comment history, I'm not so sure.

      "Violence is okay to perpetrate, but not to respond with."

      That's a value judgement. Here's my value judgement: Violence is not OK to perpetrate and a response of any magnitude to stop that violence is acceptable, up to and including killing the assailant.

      Glad I live in a state within the US that supports this value, as well as providing people the means to do what they need to do if they find themselves victimized.

      I don't think you'd feel at home here.

    • dkiebd 3 days ago

      This mindset is what perpetually allows the violent to abuse the weak. What a violent person needs is a boot in the mouth. Or as many as necessary until he understands that’s not the way to behave. We are talking about people who generally have a low level of intelligence and do not understand anything else.

      • brookst 3 days ago

        Does that mean the boot-weirder is also a violent person in need of a boot to the mouth?

        Or is it not “real” violence if it’s justified? In which case, pretty much all violent people will tell you they are justified.

        Which means it reduces to “it’s ok for me to be violent because I’m righteous, unlike those thugs”

qingcharles 3 days 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 3 days ago

    If a hit and run hadn't been involved they wouldn't have gotten caught.

    • qingcharles 2 days 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.

adamrezich 3 days 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.

  • _will_ 3 days ago

    The high trust society is "gone" in many segments of society, but I don't see that we've made a decision to forsake it. Forsaking implies renouncing or turning away from it intentionally.

  • boppo1 3 days ago

    And how did we 'forsake' it?

    • adamrezich 3 days 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.

      • stickfigure 3 days ago

        I remember the 70s and my experience was nothing like your mom's. Population centers have always been full of petty crime; rural places are still pretty free from crime. You can still move to plenty of towns with population <1000 in the US, and you'll have no trouble leaving your gun or laptop in your car there.

        The one big difference though is today we have school shootings, so folks are pretty humorless about guns near schools. I'd love to hear your ideas for how to solve that, because they keep happening.

      • MisterTea 3 days 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.

      • pixl97 3 days ago

        The problem is 'actual' reality is much more complicated than this.

        50 years ago husbands beat the living shit out of their wives without recourse of the law. 50 years ago drunk driving was a socially acceptable past time. I knew people with dozens of DWIs and other that had killed people in alcohol related accidents that didn't get any prison time. What we call hate crimes now were just crimes that weren't investigated by the police.

        This said, there is something that has change.

        24/7 news and always on news with the internet. The fears we had of bad things happening to us were things we may have watched once a day, not every 15 minutes on the hour. That seemingly had a pretty large effect on how people viewed their safety in this world.

      • autoexec 2 days ago

        I'm going guess that at some point between the 70s and in 00s a lot of children were murdered in schools by people with guns.

radixdiaboli 2 days 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.