Comment by hollerith

Comment by hollerith 3 days ago

30 replies

View on Hacker News

>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.

Reply View 21 replies
  • 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.

    Reply View 19 replies
    • 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?

      Reply View 14 replies
      • HDThoreaun 2 days ago

        Yes. Thievery makes everything in the store more expensive. I have no interest in shopping at a store that has thieves in it and law enforcement does nothing to stop thieves in my area.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • hollerith 3 days ago

        In the 1970s I saw a security guard or 2 chase a thief out of a store then tackle and detain him right in front of me. Didn't make me hesitate to go back to the store or cause any worry that guards might tackle me.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • frumplestlatz 3 days 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.

        Reply View 11 replies
    • 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.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • alsetmusic 14 hours 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.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • frumplestlatz 2 days 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.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • op00to 2 days 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...

          Reply View 0 replies
  • peaseagee 3 days ago

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

    Reply View 0 replies
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...

Reply View 5 replies
  • 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.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • 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

      Reply View 0 replies
    • 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.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • ecshafer 3 days ago

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

      Reply View 1 reply
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.

Reply View 1 reply
  • 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.

    Reply View 0 replies