# Chase Shoplifter...Get Fired



## MJS (Apr 28, 2010)

Thought that this story was pretty interesting.


*



			Two retail employees
		
Click to expand...

*


> say they were fired last week after they chased down a suspected shoplifter.
> Wait: The tale gets even loopier. The men  Paul Shoemaker and Mike McGee  apparently were on their break and chasing an alleged store shoplifter not in their store, but in an adjacent Apple Store.
> The pair were heading out of the Sprint store where they used to work in Denver's Cherry Creek Mall when they came upon a frantic security guard in the hall. "[He] came right basically in front of us, and was like, 'Help me, Help me.' Out of breath. You could totally hear he was distraught," Shoemaker told Denver's 7News


 

This part really made me do a double take:



> The firing isn't without precedent. In October Walmart fired an Ocala branch's loss prevention officer for chasing a man allegedly trying to steal golf balls.  And in August 2009, two college-age Best Buy employees were fired from a Broomfield, Colorado Best Buy after tackling an alleged shoplifter. A Best Buy spokeswoman said all employees "are aware, and trained, on the standard operating procedures for dealing with shoplifting or theft  which includes ceasing pursuit of a suspected shoplifter once they exit the store." This, she said, was for the safety of employees


 
Sooo...you can chase someone thru out the store, but.....once they leave the store, you have to stop, and this is for safety reasons.  So, whats to say that while still in the store, the suspect(s) can't pull a weapon or do anything else that they could do outside, short of using their vehicle as a weapon?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 28, 2010)

Absolutely barmy - welcome to our world .


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 28, 2010)

Is it considered shop lifting if you haven't left the store?


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Is it considered shop lifting if you haven't left the store?


 



Good question.  Doing a quick search, the def. of shoplifting is:



> Shoplifting is a crime of theft governed by state laws, which vary by state. Businesses lose billions of dollars annually as a result of shoplifting. Shoplifting laws generally define shoplifting as taking or intentionally paying less for an item than the sale price. Shoplifting can include carrying, hiding, concealing, or otherwise manipulating merchandise with the intent of taking it or paying less for it. Shoplifting laws also may be defined to include changing price tags, committing refund fraud, removing a shopping cart or any other commercial property from a store location, or intentionally using an illegitimate form of payment. An intent to shoplift may be sufficient for a shoplifting charge to be brought, even if the shoplifting was not fully carried out.


 
So, seems like its the intent that matters.  I'm no lawyer or LEO so this is just my interpretation.    Can someone take an item, conceal it, stay in the store, and as long as I dont leave, its ok?  Then again, why would someone need to conceal something unless they're going to steal it?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

This is incredibly common.  Most stores have specific policies against confronting or chasing shoplifters with firing as a penalty.  That's because if a shoplifter jacks you up or kills you while you are on the job, the liability the company faces is orders of magnitude greater than the $9.99 DVD the shoplifter stole.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> This is incredibly common.  Most stores have specific policies against confronting or chasing shoplifters with firing as a penalty.  That's because if a shoplifter jacks you up or kills you while you are on the job, the liability the company faces is orders of magnitude greater than the $9.99 DVD the shoplifter stole.



QFT.

Some things are coverd by company policy or standard operating procedure, and those procedures usually exist for a good reason. Not following those procedures can have significant consequences, so if a company wants its employees to follow the procedures, they have to take action against those who don't, or people start ignoring them.

In this case, the SOP probably exist to minimize liability to the company. If you get shot because you chased someone who stole a 10$ DVD, that is not good for the company. If you end up injuring that person while chasing him, that is not good either. SOP exists to protect the employee as much as the employer, and a good deal of thought has gone into it.

I agree that firing in this case is stupid, but otoh if they didn't, then it would be ignored from now on.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 29, 2010)

MJS said:


> Sooo...you can chase someone thru out the store, but.....once they leave the store, you have to stop, and this is for safety reasons.  So, whats to say that while still in the store, the suspect(s) can't pull a weapon or do anything else that they could do outside, short of using their vehicle as a weapon?




Likely more to do with insurance and liability reasons then anything.  If the guy chasing gets hurt somehow they risk a huge lawsuit compared to the fairly small loss that the shoplifter got away with.

I would bet money that this rule is dictated by insurance companies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2010)

MJS said:


> So, seems like its the intent that matters.  I'm no lawyer or LEO so this is just my interpretation.    Can someone take an item, conceal it, stay in the store, and as long as I dont leave, its ok?  Then again, why would someone need to conceal something unless they're going to steal it?



It's my understanding that concealing is considered intent to steal.  You don't have to attempt to leave the store without paying.  Furtive concealment are enough.


----------



## sfs982000 (Apr 29, 2010)

I worked security within a shopping mall for quite a number of years (insert Paul Blart joke here)   Seriously though, the policy we had was pretty much defined that all we were allowed to do was observe and report.  We were allowed to follow suspects within the mall property, but once they left property or if we actually lost site of the individuals we had to back off.  As far as losing site of the individuals, it gave them a chance to ditch the stolen merchandise and caused the potential for a bad stop, which could result in the person suing the shopping center for a wrongful stop.  Our policy also stated that we could not initiate a stop on a person that a store employee had to make the initial contact (basically with us standing behind them) then if the person failed to comply then local authorities were contacted and we observed them until the cops arrived to take over the situation.  I could go for days with various stories of the stuff I saw over the years.


----------



## Stac3y (Apr 29, 2010)

Speaking as someone who supervises a bunch of employees, the rules may partly stem from a desire not to give the employees a handy excuse to run off from work. "But, boss! I promise, I was chasing a shoplifter when I ran to the bar down the street. Really!"


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> This is incredibly common. Most stores have specific policies against confronting or chasing shoplifters with firing as a penalty. That's because if a shoplifter jacks you up or kills you while you are on the job, the liability the company faces is orders of magnitude greater than the $9.99 DVD the shoplifter stole.


 
Thats a very good point.  Of course, the other side of this is, then why have loss prevention?  If they can't even follow them to the parking lot to get a description of them, whether or not they're on foot, getting into a car, and if so a description of the car, then just let them run or walk out of the store, and chalk it up as a loss.


----------



## Darksoul (Apr 30, 2010)

-I understand that places of business have their policies to prevent injuries of employees and avoidance of lawsuits by criminals but at the same time, it seems a little silly. For one, people who work security generally have an expectation that some physical damage during the course of duty MAY occur, for whatever reason. Not a given, but the possibility is recognized. I work security, I do patrol, I rarely have to deal with people beyond employees and cleaners. However, I spend most of my shift driving, therefore I'm careful to watch out for car accidents. In loss prevention, I would assume the expectation to be even higher, even with store policy. At the very least, LP will confront someone who is stealing, even if they don't physically try to restrain them. That suspect can turn on the LP at anytime, or run out the door.

-My second point concerns the potential lawsuits. Yeah, LP can get a discription of the perp, and maybe they'll be nailed later, go to jail, whatever. But to me, it seems to embolden them to shoplift again if LP doesn't go after them. I think the fear of whatever should be instilled in anyone that steals. LP should be an active deterrant. Otherwise, thousands of dollars of merchandise end up walking out the door without being payed for. I guess its better than a million dollar lawsuit, but in a tight economy? Plus, while I think criminals should have some limited rights in the way they're treated and processed, I think not allowing LP to go after them is rewarding the criminal, and punishing society, certainly the company.

-Not an easy solution to these kinds of problems. Not sure if there is one.

Andrew


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 30, 2010)

MJS said:


> Thats a very good point.  Of course, the other side of this is, then why have loss prevention?  If they can't even follow them to the parking lot to get a description of them, whether or not they're on foot, getting into a car, and if so a description of the car, then just let them run or walk out of the store, and chalk it up as a loss.



Let's say an employee decides to be really aggressive and harms someone.  The store gets sued.  Sorry, but that's the reality.

Let's say that the person being trailed/stopped gets really aggressive and hurts the employee.  The store gets sued.  Sorry again, but that's the reality.

Stores are insured.  The insurance company generally insists that store policies minimize liability to them in order to keep the rates as low as possible.  This means that loss of item is far preferable to loss due to litigation.

Seriously, shoplifting / shrinkage (employee theft) is a huge cost to business, but it's factored into the overall cost.  They keep guards, door beepers, and other appearances of security in order to keep the loss within a certain percentage.  It keeps honest people honest.  They're not concerned about the crooks, with the exception occasional 'rings' of organized criminals who systematically ravage an area; that will get enhanced police protection and an attempt to actually stop them.

Business is not concerned with right or wrong.   They are concerned with profit.  Loss due to theft is part of their operating costs.  They know that.  After that, it's all down to risk/reward.  The risk of loss due to liability is higher than the risk of loss due to theft.  So let the crooks go.

Stores are not cops and they don't want to be, is what it comes down to.  Security guards are window-dressing, even if they don't think so.

By the way, the TSA is the same thing; airport security theater.  No real value.


----------



## Darksoul (Apr 30, 2010)

-You're right about the profit being the concern. Sad though, it seems to be common these days for profit to hold a higher place than right or wrong. Its the reality but I can't help but wonder if it also contributes to the breaking down of society. And woe to the security guard that doesn't know their place in the grand scheme of things. Some really do think they're cops! Amazing when I run into those types. I've been doing security long enough to know what I can and cannot do, and what purpose my job serves. Some people never figure that out.

Andrew


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 30, 2010)

Darksoul said:


> Sad though, it seems to be common these days for profit to hold a higher place than right or wrong. Its the reality but I can't help but wonder if it also contributes to the breaking down of society.



Well, if it helps, think about it this way.  Let's say that stores universally make it a policy to chase down, capture, and prosecute shoplifters (ignoring all other concerns for a moment).  Would the shoplifting rate drop?  It might!

But what has that done with regard to the break down of society?  Are fewer people shoplifting now because they're good people whereas before they were bad people?  Or are they still bad people who are just more afraid to shoplift?  Did it make people who think shoplifting is OK into people who think shoplifting is a bad thing?

I suspect that all it would do is suppress the crime; it would not change the heart and soul of the populace or those who would otherwise go ahead and steal.

And suppressing crime is a good and laudable thing, even if it doesn't change how people feel; but when we're talking about the heart and soul of the country, I don't think it has much effect.  That falls to the moral values and codes society imprints on its citizens, through teachers, education, parents, and churches.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 30, 2010)

I think its a good policy to be honest.
We are talking about big corporations here, the risk of liability from some minimum wage joe making a decision to tackle someone or unlawfully detain someone and open up a huge lawsuit is to great... most of the places have  insurance to cover any loss anyways, and the losses they risk are so small in the greater picture and are covered by profits anyways.
Just a couple weeks ago the local McDonalds had a guy come in and demand money from the cash register, the guy working declined to do it and the criminal slashed the employees face and neck with a knife.
just stupid... its not his money, and I would be surprised if the store policies did not require them to empty the drawer regularly to a minimum level of cash on hand..
Now the poor employee probably will have to live disfigured the rest of his life and get a new job. I can not imagine any way that McDonalds would keep this guy after this.
No in todays sue happy world it just is not worth it.


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2010)

If management says the rules are Do X, Don't Do Y; and the employee doesn't do X and does do Y....


----------



## MBuzzy (May 1, 2010)

I have to agree with this one too.  Not necessarily in principle, but definitely in practice.  Our society drives us to this rule.  There is no way that a corporation could survive in the legal system without this rule.


----------



## MJS (May 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's say an employee decides to be really aggressive and harms someone. The store gets sued. Sorry, but that's the reality.
> 
> Let's say that the person being trailed/stopped gets really aggressive and hurts the employee. The store gets sued. Sorry again, but that's the reality.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Bill,

I hear what you're saying and I dont disagree.  I todays lawsuit happy world, its probably better to be safe than sorry as far as the stores go.  Just sucks that nothing can be done, out of fear of a suit, either by the store worker or the piece of **** that stole items.  

This is why I said, why have the security at all?  If its nothing more than a window dressing, and if they can't do anything, then why have them?  The store is wasting money, not that they're paying them much to begin with but still.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 2, 2010)

MJS said:


> This is why I said, why have the security at all?  If its nothing more than a window dressing, and if they can't do anything, then why have them?  The store is wasting money, not that they're paying them much to begin with but still.



To keep honest people honest, and to prevent theft caused by easy opportunity. Sure, the shoplifter got away but he was made so he won't be coming back. the fact that he got away with a DVD is not really to the point.


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> To keep honest people honest, and to prevent theft caused by easy opportunity. Sure, the shoplifter got away but he was made so he won't be coming back. the fact that he got away with a DVD is not really to the point.


 
True, but IMO, if you're an honest, upstanding citizen, you probably won't need to even worry about security, due to the fact that you won't steal.  I've never been arrested in my life, came from a LE family, work in that field, indirectly, so for me, whether they're there or not, really doesn't phase me.  If they want to watch me, watch away...I have nothing to hide. 

Of course, I have to wonder how many times a person or people shoplift from a store and continue to go back, doing it over and over, because they know the store is an easy target, know that there is no security or know that if there is, that the security person may be limited as to what they can/can't do anyways.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 2, 2010)

MJS said:


> True, but IMO, if you're an honest, upstanding citizen, you probably won't need to even worry about security, due to the fact that you won't steal.  I've never been arrested in my life, came from a LE family, work in that field, indirectly, so for me, whether they're there or not, really doesn't phase me.  If they want to watch me, watch away...I have nothing to hide.
> 
> Of course, I have to wonder how many times a person or people shoplift from a store and continue to go back, doing it over and over, because they know the store is an easy target, know that there is no security or know that if there is, that the security person may be limited as to what they can/can't do anyways.



Most people are not *that* honest.  Speed limit signs don't slow them down.  Cop cars parked behind billboards do.  Even when the cop cars are empty.  It's been shown again and again.

Most people are also unaware of the limits of a security guard's authority or the store's employee policy regarding chasing shoplifters.  The store depends upon this ignorance, and they do nothing to call attention to it.  Sure, it's been in the paper.  So was the Health Care Reform, and still people are being duped by scammers selling them 'ObamaCare Insurance' policies as if they were from the government.  Sorry, most people are class-A booger-eatin' morons.

At many big-box stores, a security guard checks receipts as people leave the store.  I see it all the time.  People are so cowed, so trained to obey, that they stand in line to leave the store, receipts out, bags open, waiting to have some half-blind senile oldster peer myopically into their bag, run a yellow highlighter over their register receipt and tell them to have a nice day.  I side-step the line and walk out.   There's no law that says you have to show your receipt, and they can't make you do so.  They'll tell you it's 'store policy'.  Well, when I become an employee, then store policy will apply to me.  Until then, I don't work for them, so their store policy is their problem and not mine.

So why the security guards at all, when most of it is Kabuki Theatre?  Because people are morons, that's why.  Same as that window-dressing airport security.

Professional bad guys are not fooled.  Most of them know precisely how far the security guards are authorized to go and depend up on it when they make their plans.   Some groups of professional shoplifters will hit a store _en masse_, strolling in and grabbing armloads of the most expensive items that they can easily fence, and walking out in full view of everyone.  They know they won't be chased by store security, the car they depart in is generally stolen or has stolen plates, and the cops don't run code 3 to shoplifting calls.

The general public doesn't know all this.  They see the security guard, they assume he has _'aw-thor-ahty'_ and they do what the nice security guard tells them to do.


----------

