Grocery worker fired for stopping shoplifter

[shemp]

linky linky (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/grocery_worker_fired_for_stopp.html)

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store, 3135 Washtenaw Ave. He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Since when is a shoplifter a "customer"?

I, for one, will no longer shop at Whole Foods unless this man gets his job back! (Of course, I have never shopped there, but I'm sure my personal boycott will bring down the company!)

[Puppycow]

Now I know the best place to go shoplifting. ;)

I, for one, will no longer shop at Whole Foods unless this man gets his job back! (Of course, I have never shopped there, but I'm sure my personal boycott will bring down the company!)

Just boycott the checkout line, not the store itself. ;)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

linky linky (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/grocery_worker_fired_for_stopp.html)



Since when is a shoplifter a "customer"?

I, for one, will no longer shop at Whole Foods unless this man gets his job back! (Of course, I have never shopped there, but I'm sure my personal boycott will bring down the company!)

Did the manager get fired for giving him an order to break company policy or was he meant to help stop the fleeing shoplifter through the power of persuasion.

I will join your boycott as soon as I find out where my nearest store is.

[TragicMonkey]

Can the manager be charged with abetting the crime of shoplifting? Seems to me the criminal was apprehended until this person interfered.

eta: Anyway, isn't it the duty of every citizen to attempt to thwart crime when it can be done safely? I'd say it's at least socially implied, if not outright legally. If so, then the guy should never have let the shoplifter go, because that would be violating his duty to the rest of society. Some dippy boss has no authority, legal or ethical, to circumvent the greater good of society for his own company's idiotic policies.

[HarryKeogh]

"Whole Foods"? Sounds more like "Ass Whole Foods" to me.

http://forums.gleemax.com/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

[Magic 9-Ball]

Yes, a shoplifter cannot be a customer. A customer is someone who purchases good or services from the store.

We shop there all the time. I can tell you it's likely all the stores know about this and will have prepared responses before long, just in case someone brings this up. When Dateline (I think) had a story about their mishandling of meat, the next day they had prepared statements in the store.

Interestingly, they will refuse to discuss the homeopathic crap they carry, just saying their customers want them to carry it, so they will.

But they do have nice fruit, shushi and desserts. Most everything else can be overpriced.

[joobie]

i work in a grocery store, and there's no way i would chase after or physically restrain someone for shoplifting anything they could manage to carry.

i have stopped people from walking out with shopping carts full of meat but when they run off, all i'm going to do is take the stuff back and point them out on the security footage.

[Ladyhawk]

While I agree that firing the employee was a bit harsh, I don't disagree with Whole Foods (or any other company) having a policy about not coming into physical contact with a customer....even if he/she were shoplifting. Consider the liability if the alledged shoplifter had been 'packin' and decided to put a cap in the employee's backside? That employee could turn around and sue Whole Foods, couldn't he?

And, yes, I agree the manager should face equal consequences in this situation. Frankly, I think a warning would have sufficed rather than a termination of employment. Truth is. dedicated employees like Mr. Schultz are hard to find....let alone keep!

[TragicMonkey]

Consider the liability if the alledged shoplifter had been 'packin' and decided to put a cap in the employee's backside? That employee could turn around and sue Whole Foods, couldn't he?

What do you want to bet that if a shoplifter pulled out a gun and shot an employee who wasn't doing anything at all about the crime, the employee would still sue Whole Foods?

[casebro]

He didn't stop a shoplifter. He stopped a suspect who was evading arrest, a much more serious crime. Something cops will shoot you for.

[JoeEllison]

Whatever wrong he might have done, from the standpoint of his job, is canceled out by the manager's actions. How else was he supposed to help stop the shoplifter, by using the Force?

[tsg]

Yes, a shoplifter cannot be a customer. A customer is someone who purchases good or services from the store.

Just to pick a nit, this definition excludes people who are in the store but don't actually buy anything, which reduces the jurisdiction of the store's "no physical contact with customers" policy to between the cash register and the front door. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of whoever wrote it.

But that's neither here nor there. In the grand scheme of things, the guy probably got away with $25 worth of merchandise, and Whole Foods may consider that loss acceptable compared with the possibility of litigation by either the shoplifter for being assaulted or the employee for getting injured apprehending him. Did the employee deserve to be fired? It seems a little harsh to me, and I think it can be argued that a reasonable person would interpret that particular policy as not applying to shoplifters. If it went to court, I'm fairly sure a jury would agree.

In my opinion, if Whole Foods doesn't want their employees apprehending shoplifters, it should say so in clearer terms. Otherwise, it sounds like this guy got fired on a technicality.

[sinclairmcevoy]

:D:D"Whole Foods"? Sounds more like "Ass Whole Foods" to me.

http://forums.gleemax.com/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

:D:D:D

[Ladyhawk]

What do you want to bet that if a shoplifter pulled out a gun and shot an employee who wasn't doing anything at all about the crime, the employee would still sue Whole Foods?

True. But, I think you're missing my point. In your scenario, there may be nothing the employee could do to avoid being shot. But, where an employee deliberately pursues a shoplifter who could be armed and dangerous, that employee exponentially increases the risk of provoking personal harm as opposed to the innocent bystander. I merely point out that companies like Whole Foods put such policies in place to lower their risk of exposure to such lawsuits.

[TragicMonkey]

True. But, I think you're missing my point. In your scenario, there may be nothing the employee could do to avoid being shot. But, where an employee deliberately pursues a shoplifter who could be armed and dangerous, that employee exponentially increases the risk of provoking personal harm as opposed to the innocent bystander. I merely point out that companies like Whole Foods put such policies in place to lower their risk of exposure to such lawsuits.

Yeah, you can shoplift all you want from Victoria's Secret also. They have a policy that nobody can even say anything, because they're afraid someone will come in, put stuff in their bag, then dump it when you're not looking, then they can sue the store for false accusations.

[TragicMonkey]

Whatever wrong he might have done, from the standpoint of his job, is canceled out by the manager's actions. How else was he supposed to help stop the shoplifter, by using the Force?

Manager Appleby: "Jones, you violated policy! I shall have to fire you!"
[choking noise]
[thud]
Jones: "So, what now, Manager Kettleson?"
Kettleson: "The Emperor is coming here?! We shall triple our efforts!"

[Magic 9-Ball]

Just to pick a nit, this definition excludes people who are in the store but don't actually buy anything, which reduces the jurisdiction of the store's "no physical contact with customers" policy to between the cash register and the front door. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of whoever wrote it.


True. There is a distinction between a person who is browsing or looking around vs. one specifically there to shoplift. I can't see that being a customer.

In my opinion, if Whole Foods doesn't want their employees apprehending shoplifters, it should say so in clearer terms. Otherwise, it sounds like this guy got fired on a technicality.

I'd certainly agree with that.

That reminds me of the pizza delivery man who was fired for fighting back against a would be robber. A lot of pizza companies, like Pizza Hut, I believe, specifically have policies on that.

[Ladyhawk]

Yeah, you can shoplift all you want from Victoria's Secret also. They have a policy that nobody can even say anything, because they're afraid someone will come in, put stuff in their bag, then dump it when you're not looking, then they can sue the store for false accusations.

And you come by knowing this how, exactly?????

[tsg]

True. There is a distinction between a person who is browsing or looking around vs. one specifically there to shoplift. I can't see that being a customer.

I don't either, but I also don't see a problem with Whole Foods not wanting their employees trying to make the determination which is which.

I'd certainly agree with that.

That reminds me of the pizza delivery man who was fired for fighting back against a would be robber. A lot of pizza companies, like Pizza Hut, I believe, specifically have policies on that.

When I was in college I was a driver for Domino's. The policy was give them whatever they asked for and call the police when they'd gone. I don't know if resisting would get you fired, but they had a standing policy that if you got a speeding ticket while working, termination was automatic.

[TragicMonkey]

And you come by knowing this how, exactly?????

I worked there for four months back in the nineties, when they were trying to see if having male employees would improve sales.

The answer is yes, it can, provided one of those men isn't TragicMonkey.

It's a pretty rotten place, really. They put returned underpants back out on the racks, with new price tags. Sometimes they have to spray them to remove odors.

[Esperdome]

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store, 3135 Washtenaw Ave.

With Schultz being off the clock I would think the store would have some wiggle room in deciding what action to take, especially since it ended up happening off store property.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea what I'm taking about!

[Mr. Skinny]

He didn't stop a shoplifter. He stopped a suspect who was evading arrest, a much more serious crime. Something cops will shoot you for.
Sorry, but no cop would shoot someone for evading arrest for a simple shoplifting charge.

[tsg]

With Schultz being off the clock I would think the store would have some wiggle room in deciding what action to take, especially since it ended up happening off store property.

As far as I know, one does not stop being an employee simply for being punched out on break.

[Esperdome]

As far as I know, one does not stop being an employee simply for being punched out on break.

I agree, but most companies have different standards of conduct depending on whether you are on the clock or on your own time.

[tsg]

I agree, but most companies have different standards of conduct depending on whether you are on the clock or on your own time.

It depends on what conduct we are talking about. Policies against drug use, for instance, is one of those where it doesn't matter if you are on the clock (whether they should be or not is a whole other argument that I don't have any real interest in pursuing at the moment). If he weren't scheduled to work that day and was there on his own time, it might be a different matter. On his way out the door from just having finished a shift (or going on break) I think is pushing it.

[Crossbow]

linky linky (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/grocery_worker_fired_for_stopp.html)



Since when is a shoplifter a "customer"?

I, for one, will no longer shop at Whole Foods unless this man gets his job back! (Of course, I have never shopped there, but I'm sure my personal boycott will bring down the company!)

I do hope that the management does rescind their decision, but in all fairness employees should not make any sort of physical contact with criminal. It is just too dangerous since the person may have a weapon, or an accomplice, or both weapons and accomplices, and that could be very bad for the employee.

Way back when I used to work for a living, I worked at convenience stores and department stores, and shoplifters always made me very mad. There were a couple of times that I got physical with them, and fortunately for both of us there were no serious repercussions. However, that was just luck, and if the thief had a weapon or a friend nearby, I could have easily been hurt or killed for ten dollars worth of merchandise.

Ugh! It is just not worth it.

The best thing to do is, get what information you can, and then call the police as soon as possible. They are the experts in making proper arrests so it is best to let them do it and not get yourself hurt or killed for some goods that can be readily replaced.

[Esperdome]

It depends on what conduct we are talking about. Policies against drug use, for instance, is one of those where it doesn't matter if you are on the clock (whether they should be or not is a whole other argument that I don't have any real interest in pursuing at the moment). If he weren't scheduled to work that day and was there on his own time, it might be a different matter. On his way out the door from just having finished a shift (or going on break) I think is pushing it.

I think it boils down to whether or not the company could be held liable for the employee's action, and I could see a jury going either way with it here. I'm not sure what has been decided in the past.

We have these stories pop up every so often, and while I can see the companies not wanting to encourage vigilante acts by employees, the public loves the citizen crime fighters and companies get horrible PR when they fire them. If I was a manager I would publicly admonish them, and privately give them a raise.

[tsg]

If I was a manager I would publicly admonish them, and privately give them a raise.

This is one of those things that makes it hard to find a reasonable balance. On one side, as a manager, I would want my employees to know that nothing on the shelves or in the register is worth them getting hurt for. On the other side, there is such a thing as becoming too easy a target.

My car was broken into years ago. The thieves got away with less than $50 worth of crap including two feet of coax cable. (Two feet of coax cable is pretty much useless except to hand to a sales clerk and say "I need more of this". But I digress.) The window they broke to get in cost $150 to repair. Invariably, every time I told the story, someone would say "that's why I leave my car unlocked. There's nothing of any value and it saves me the cost of replacing the window." The way I see it, locking my doors may cost me a window once or twice, but it also deters the casual thief looking for an easy target. Now, I can't say how often locking my doors has prevented someone from taking something just because they could. But my car has only been broken into once in 20 years.

So, while I would not want someone to risk getting injured or killed over $12 worth of cheese, I also wouldn't want to encourage more theft by making it to easy.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

If he'd had a Taser he could have stopped the shoplifter without actually touching him.


I wonder how Whole Foods would react if a customer suffered a heart attack and an employee rendered first aid. If it's zero tolerance, rules-are-rules management, they too, should be fired.

[Bikewer]

I agree with the above posts regarding the litigation that might result from these incidents.

If the shoplifter were to be injured by the employee, he might well bring suit against both the employee and the store/corporation for his injuries. Even though he was committing a criminal act, his attorneys would argue that the employee was exceeding his rights in attempting to apprehend the criminal, and that he was violating his own company policy in attempting such an arrest.
If the employee were to be injured by the shoplifter, or while chasing him, he might sue for medical treatment, disability, loss of work, etc. The company shields itself from such lawsuits by prohibiting the activity.
In such cases as security personnel are employed for this purpose, they are generally contracted, and thus may have policies and liabilities not connected to the store.

[tsg]

If he'd had a Taser he could have stopped the shoplifter without actually touching him.

If that were the case, he could have shot him as well. I'm betting it isn't, though.

I wonder how Whole Foods would react if a customer suffered a heart attack and an employee rendered first aid. If it's zero tolerance, rules-are-rules management, they too, should be fired.

I don't think that is a reasonable assumption either.

[Magic 9-Ball]

I wonder how Whole Foods would react if a customer suffered a heart attack and an employee rendered first aid. If it's zero tolerance, rules-are-rules management, they too, should be fired.


Interesting. Some states have a Good Samaritan law making punishable NOT to render aid, especially if you have first aid training. I don't think a company rule can supercede that. They might be fired, but it would likely not hold up in a court of law (or public opinion).

[shadron]

Interesting. Some states have a Good Samaritan law making punishable NOT to render aid, especially if you have first aid training. I don't think a company rule can supercede that. They might be fired, but it would likely not hold up in a court of law (or public opinion).

On the other hand, he could botch the first aid, leaving himself and his employer in a very deep hole. I think the Good Samaritan laws don't require rendering aid, but rather shield any aid-giver from liability. It's not clear what happens when a clear incompetent renders botched aid.

[Soapy Sam]

Manager: "Schulz! Stop that shoplifter!"
Schulz: " I see nuzzing. I know NUZZING!"

One hopes Mr Schulz will find an employer with more guts.
He might try some security firms?

[Esperdome]

On the other hand, he could botch the first aid, leaving himself and his employer in a very deep hole. I think the Good Samaritan laws don't require rendering aid, but rather shield any aid-giver from liability. It's not clear what happens when a clear incompetent renders botched aid.

Having been through numerous first aid courses, they tell you that you are protected from liability if you do what you can to the best of your ability. The assumption being that any care is better than no care at all.

[tsg]

Interesting. Some states have a Good Samaritan law making punishable NOT to render aid, especially if you have first aid training. I don't think a company rule can supercede that. They might be fired, but it would likely not hold up in a court of law (or public opinion).

I haven't gone through them all, but from here (http://www.cprinstructor.com/legal.htm) it seems the common theme in Good Samaritan laws is protection from liability "as a result of acts or omissions" in providing emergency care unless "such acts or omissions constitute willful and wanton negligence/misconduct". Beyond that exception, I haven't seen anything yet that requires people, trained or otherwise, to render aid.

[Crossbow]

On the other hand, he could botch the first aid, leaving himself and his employer in a very deep hole. I think the Good Samaritan laws don't require rendering aid, but rather shield any aid-giver from liability. It's not clear what happens when a clear incompetent renders botched aid.

To put it breifly, the "Good Samaritan" law does not require one to actually render aid.

However, it does provide legal protection to the person providing the aid as long as the person gives the aid to the extent of their knowledge.

Soooo, a person who has taken the Red Cross CPR class is legally protected from any damages that they may do to person when giving that person CPR.
However, if that person were to give them drugs, open heart surgery, or other advanced procedures, then that person would not be legally protected.

I hope this helps!

[bokonon]

Manager: "Schulz! Stop that shoplifter!"
Schulz: " I see nuzzing. I know NUZZING!"

One hopes Mr Schulz will find an employer with more guts.
He might try some security firms?
I'm kind of a closet cop, I guess. Many times, I've stopped my car and gotten involved when I saw a man assaulting a woman on the street. It's done some good, and I haven't been punched (or worse) yet, but it's really not a smart thing to do.

I'm sure the Whole Foods policy is in place to protect the store, as others have said. I think they have a right to set their own policies, and enforce them, so I don't have a problem with the employee who was fired for violating their policy.

A few years back, I was in a large bookstore, and saw a customer with a backpack take a basket full of books into the men's room. When he came out, his backpack was full, and the basket was empty.

I went to the information desk and told them about it, and they said they couldn't do anything, because they hadn't seen it themselves. I followed the guy home, got his name off his mailbox, and left a note on his door saying "I know who you are, and I saw what you did. Take the books back." I don't know if that did any good or not, though I'm inclined to doubt it.

The bookstore has subsequently put tag detector alarms on the corridor that leads to the men's room, but seeing how often the tag detector alarms go off at the front door with the employees not even bothering to look up makes me doubt that has much effect either.

I think most retailers just figure shoplifting losses are a cost of doing business, and build it in to their prices. So yeah, we all pay more to subsidize the leeches, and I don't know what can be done about it. In a way, I'm a bit of a leech myself -- I go to the bookstore to browse for books that interest me, then come home and buy them used online for a fraction of the price. The law can't touch me either -- BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!

[Zarathustra]

Like Blockbuster (http://www.bspcn.com/2007/07/26/the-top-ten-lies-blockbuster-video-tells-their-customers/), many retail chain stores believe the decision to reduce liability and shrinkage that would be incurred by having it's staff playing cop almost always outweighs the loss of the actual merchandise.
In any retail business, Shrinkage is calculated into the store's overall margins.
Retail stores tend to prefer combating shrink through store layout, security tech such as RFID, product placement, and through employee education and awareness programs.
These of course are not intended to stop all shoplifting, but rather to make it as uncomfortable and yet as as fiscally sound for the store as it can be.
Of course, the irony is that the largest Shrink in a retail store always comes from internal sources.

Was Whole Foods right to fire him? They were within their rights, but it was a rather scummy thing to do I think.
I would have probably given him a verbal warning, and bought him a drink later, but not fire him.

[Magic 9-Ball]

To put it breifly, the "Good Samaritan" law does not require one to actually render aid.

I hope this helps!


I think so. But I am not a lawyer (applause!) and it appears there are states that say you can be liable for not providing assistance. So maybe someone can interpret this: "shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another."

This one is from Florida: http://www.cprinstructor.com/FL-GS.htm There are others in other states.

Whatever it is, it's an interesting discussion. I had lifesaving courses, but they were easily 15 years ago. I'm not sure I can do everything I would need to do, other than make a call to 911 on my cell first.

[shuize]

Whatever wrong he might have done, from the standpoint of his job, is canceled out by the manager's actions. How else was he supposed to help stop the shoplifter, by using the Force?


No kidding. The manager called for help and the employee responded. The manager then told him to let the guy go and he let the guy go.

Sounds to me like he did exactly as ordered.

[casebro]

I'd say the on-the-spot manager's orders trumps the pre-written policy. The manager is the one who should have been fired.

Any update an wht the kid is doing now? They usually get picked up pronto by some other business who wants the +++ PR .

[LashL]

I think so. But I am not a lawyer (applause!) and it appears there are states that say you can be liable for not providing assistance. So maybe someone can interpret this: "shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another."

This one is from Florida: http://www.cprinstructor.com/FL-GS.htm There are others in other states.

The Florida statute you cited does not impose any obligation on a random citizen, whether a medical professional or not, to render assistance gratuitously to another person who may be in medical distress outside of a hospital or other medical facility, e.g. at the scene of an accident or at a restaurant or at a sporting event, etc.

The statute protects random citizens who choose to try to assist others in an emergency situation by immunizing them from legal liability as long as they act as a reasonably prudent person would act in the circumstances.

The short blurb that you quoted above actually refers to hospital workers providing patient care while the patient is in the hospital, and not to random citizens rendering or failing to render assistance elsewhere.

The relevant parts of the section you cited are bolded below:

Any hospital licensed under chapter 395, any employee of such hospital working in a clinical area within the facility and providing patient care, and any person licensed to practice medicine who in good faith renders medical care or treatment necessitated by a sudden, unexpected situation or occurrence resulting in a serious medical condition demanding immediate medical attention, for which the patient enters the hospital through its emergency room or trauma center, or necessitated by a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.
It goes on to further elaborate on the circumstances to which the immunity applies for medical personnel providing care in hospital or other medical facilities, but the details are not really relevant to this particular discussion.

[WildCat]

When I was in college I was a driver for Domino's. The policy was give them whatever they asked for and call the police when they'd gone. I don't know if resisting would get you fired,
Apparently not - Domino's delivery driver shoots robber dead (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/preston.pizza.delivery.murder.kmov).

[PAC]

Like Blockbuster (http://www.bspcn.com/2007/07/26/the-top-ten-lies-blockbuster-video-tells-their-customers/), many retail chain stores believe the decision to reduce liability and shrinkage that would be incurred by having it's staff playing cop almost always outweighs the loss of the actual merchandise.
In any retail business, Shrinkage is calculated into the store's overall margins.
Retail stores tend to prefer combating shrink through store layout, security tech such as RFID, product placement, and through employee education and awareness programs.
These of course are not intended to stop all shoplifting, but rather to make it as uncomfortable and yet as as fiscally sound for the store as it can be.
Of course, the irony is that the largest Shrink in a retail store always comes from internal sources.

Was Whole Foods right to fire him? They were within their rights, but it was a rather scummy thing to do I think.
I would have probably given him a verbal warning, and bought him a drink later, but not fire him.


I manage a small company which has a retail outlet. I agree with these statements and this is our policy. In addition, our policy was developed for the primary purpose of keeping our employees and customers from harm. Our owner's belief is that no financial loss is worth more than the well being of our customers and employees.

[ShowerComic]

Yes, a shoplifter cannot be a customer. A customer is someone who purchases good or services from the store.

And their security guards can't touch the customers / shoplifters because it violates policy.

-- Yes I'd like to buy this stick of gum, and steal this Christmas Turkey, and Cranberry Sauce please.

[Modified]

Our owner's belief is that no financial loss is worth more than the well being of our customers and employees.

My belief is that catching a thief is worth a considerable risk to myself, and I have acted on that belief. The damage that thieves do can not be measured in stolen merchandise. That is the smallest part of it.

[firecoins]

Is that why I can't pick up the counter girl? Damn it I thought she was saving me for a cold day in hell.

[scratchy]

The way I see it, locking my doors may cost me a window once or twice, but it also deters the casual thief looking for an easy target. Now, I can't say how often locking my doors has prevented someone from taking something just because they could. But my car has only been broken into once in 20 years.
I had a car for a few years that i never ever locked. Didnt have any keys to it other than ignition. All the time it was parked at night on an inner city street. The rule was of course to never leave anything that i didnt want to lose. Only once did i notice someone had checked it out. Nothing was stolen since there werent anything of value, but the introder left behind a heavy and expensive (maybe 50 usd) padlock with the key in it. It now does a good job at my summer house where it has resisted at least two break in attempts.

[qayak]

My son works in grocery stores and I have told him that it isn't a good idea to get involved with catching a shoplifter. First and foremost, he isn't getting paid to put himself in danger. He will not be covered by Worker's Comp if he gets injured. He makes minimum wage and the stores are notorious for simply cutting the shifts of anyone who misses work for whatever reason until they simpl;y have to find another job. there is nothing these young people can do about it.

My advice to my son is simple, do your job, collect your pay and when something better comes along, take it. If you want to catch shoplifters, get a job with a company that does that, you will get paid twice as much.

My advice to the kid that got fired is also simple, make it publicly known what the store's policy on shoplifters is, and the shoplifters will take care of the store for you. :p

[articulett]

Hopefully the kid will get a better job-- maybe as a security guard somewhere.

[PAC]

My belief is that catching a thief is worth a considerable risk to myself, and I have acted on that belief. The damage that thieves do can not be measured in stolen merchandise. That is the smallest part of it.


We work hard to catch shoplifters. We have up-to-date security systems, good policies and practices and we prosecute. However, how can a few dollars of merchandise by worth human suffering? It is my responsibility to set the direction and I want to keep our folks from ever being harmed. Stuff happens on our world. Discretion is the beter part of valor!

[PAC]

The way I see it, locking my doors may cost me a window once or twice, but it also deters the casual thief looking for an easy target. Now, I can't say how often locking my doors has prevented someone from taking something just because they could. But my car has only been broken into once in 20 years.
I also wouldn't want to encourage more theft by making it to easy.

The security experts we have brought in to advise us agree with you. Most of the effort is to deter the casual thief and to make it not worth the risk to them. The professional or dedicated thief will steal. So, at this point our efforts are to get them off the property without placing anyone in harms way. We are not trained or prepared for law enforcement. We let the qualified folks do their job. Our jobs are to deter and provide evidence.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I was just kidding about the Taser.

[tkingdoll]

I had a car for a few years that i never ever locked. Didnt have any keys to it other than ignition.

I assume you didn't have insurance either? A policy is automatically invalidated if you don't lock the car.

[tsg]

I assume you didn't have insurance either? A policy is automatically invalidated if you don't lock the car.

It depends on the policy. A lot of people in the US only have liability insurance (ie. covers damage to other people's property that you cause in an accident) and not collision (covers damage to your own car in an accident) or comprehensive (covers damage to your car in pretty much everything but an accident). Some homeowner's policies cover property theft from the car. Most banks require comprehensive and collision until the loan is paid off. By then the car usually isn't worth insuring.

In any case, most cars are so easy to break into without a key it's very hard to prove the car was unlocked before it was robbed. I once heard a comedian to a bit on locking his keys in the car and remarking how fast the tow-truck driver was able to open it. "You mean, the only person the locks are keeping out of my car is me?"

[Modified]

In any case, most cars are so easy to break into without a key it's very hard to prove the car was unlocked before it was robbed. I once heard a comedian to a bit on locking his keys in the car and remarking how fast the tow-truck driver was able to open it. "You mean, the only person the locks are keeping out of my car is me?"

A few months ago I called AAA after locking my keys in the car. When the guy showed up, it was pouring rain. I ran out to hold an umbrella for him while he popped the lock, and got about one step out the door before he was done and headed back to his truck. It literally took him less than one second to open it.

[qayak]

I assume you didn't have insurance either? A policy is automatically invalidated if you don't lock the car.

Not in all areas.

[tkingdoll]

It depends on the policy. A lot of people in the US only have liability insurance (ie. covers damage to other people's property that you cause in an accident) and not collision (covers damage to your own car in an accident) or comprehensive (covers damage to your car in pretty much everything but an accident). Some homeowner's policies cover property theft from the car. Most banks require comprehensive and collision until the loan is paid off. By then the car usually isn't worth insuring.

In any case, most cars are so easy to break into without a key it's very hard to prove the car was unlocked before it was robbed. I once heard a comedian to a bit on locking his keys in the car and remarking how fast the tow-truck driver was able to open it. "You mean, the only person the locks are keeping out of my car is me?"

You funny Americans. In the UK we have some sort of "due care and attention" clause and leaving your car unlocked will certainly invalidate your insurance. There are probably exceptions but you'd have to shop around for them and they'd cost you a lot.

[rwguinn]

You funny Americans. In the UK we have some sort of "due care and attention" clause and leaving your car unlocked will certainly invalidate your insurance. There are probably exceptions but you'd have to shop around for them and they'd cost you a lot.

Here in the US, the protection requirement is for damage you might cause other people. All states have liability requirements, and minimum amounts (Most are too low for saving yourself from ruin).
The lien-holders (i before e, or some silly rule, here) require that you protect their investment.
We don't have laws that require you to save you from your own idiocy, mostly.

(not-so-Amusing) side note--Louisiana uses Napoleonic code as the basis for their laws--and apparently, things can be pretty loose:
A hand-lettered cardboard sign in the rear window that says "License Apply For" (sic) is sufficient to keep you from being pulled over for no registration plates (Tags), and you can buy insurance for a single month... just long enough to satisfy the "Must have liability insurance to register" requirement...

[Soapy Sam]

Here in the US, the protection requirement is for damage you might cause other people. All states have liability requirements, and minimum amounts (Most are too low for saving yourself from ruin).
The lien-holders (i before e, or some silly rule, here) require that you protect their investment.
We don't have laws that require you to save you from your own idiocy, mostly.



Indeed. My first ski lesson in Colorado concerned liability towards other skiers.
This was surprising . In Scotland, skiing is a contact sport.

[rwguinn]

Indeed. My first ski lesson in Colorado concerned liability towards other skiers.
This was surprising . In Scotland, skiing is a contact sport.

I didn't know you could ski on sheep poo!
I know cow chips are lousy for it, but maybe with an actual hill**, it could work...


** Texas has no mountains worthy of the name... Hills, yes. Gently, rolling, hills. 100-200 foot max.
sigh

[Puppycow]

Yeah, you can shoplift all you want from Victoria's Secret also. They have a policy that nobody can even say anything, because they're afraid someone will come in, put stuff in their bag, then dump it when you're not looking, then they can sue the store for false accusations.

All right! It's lingerie for the missus this year! :D

[tsg]

All right! It's lingerie for the missus this year! :D

You mean, it's lingerie for you this year.

No man buys lingerie because he thinks she will like it.

[scratchy]

I assume you didn't have insurance either? A policy is automatically invalidated if you don't lock the car.
I see now its already been covered in some lenght. I only had the liability insurance (mandatory in Sweden), since the car was sort of a well working wreck.

[BPSCG]

Indeed. My first ski lesson in Colorado concerned liability towards other skiers.
This was surprising . In Scotland, skiing is a contact sport.Sixty year-old skier sues 8-year old boy after collision (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7770411).

There's a Whole Foods right near where I live. I'm going to do all my grocery shoplifting there from now on. I mean, hell, if they aren't going to put a finger on me as I waltz out with fifty pounds of ribeye steaks and a case of French chamagne, I'll just put a ski mask on when I get near the cash register so that the cameras can't I.D. me, and head on home for a lovely meal. Thanks for filling me in on your policy, Whole Foods!

[tsg]

Sixty year-old skier sues 8-year old boy after collision (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7770411).

There's a Whole Foods right near where I live. I'm going to do all my grocery shoplifting there from now on. I mean, hell, if they aren't going to put a finger on me as I waltz out with fifty pounds of ribeye steaks and a case of French chamagne, I'll just put a ski mask on when I get near the cash register so that the cameras can't I.D. me, and head on home for a lovely meal. Thanks for filling me in on your policy, Whole Foods!

I know you're not serious about this (well, not entirely, anyway), but I think it bears pointing out that the cash register is probably not the only place they have cameras. The Whole Foods near me has so many cameras[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they could reconstruct your image in 3D, and read your driver's license through your wallet.

I only mention it because it seems that part of the discussion that isn't getting much attention is that stopping him in the parking lot isn't the only way to catch a thief.

[1]Spotting security cameras is a hobby of mine.

[BPSCG]

I know you're not serious about this (well, not entirely, anyway), but I think it bears pointing out that the cash register is probably not the only place they have cameras. The Whole Foods near me has so many cameras[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they could reconstruct your image in 3D, and read your driver's license through your wallet.Why on earth would I have my wallet with me if I wasn't planning on paying for anything? That's just looking for trouble.

I only mention it because it seems that part of the discussion that isn't getting much attention is that stopping him in the parking lot isn't the only way to catch a thief.

[1]Spotting security cameras is a hobby of mine.I guess I'm going to have to go in with the ski mask already on. Or at least a wig, sunglasses, and a fake beard. Thanks for the tips!

[Beerina]

By the way, I've shopped at the Whole Foods in Ann Arbor. The parking lot, shared with a bookstore and other businesses, is a disaster area of not enough spaces.

You go inside, and it's filled with late-50-something yuppies buying wierd greens with a confused look on their faces, then sampling cheese cubes, then walking over to those bizarre root thingies. Then they go down row after row of bulk human kibble and fill a bag with M&M-and-raisin-based, oversugared trail mix and haul out a few hundred at the cash register as they put it into bags they brought from home, then stop for a snack at McDonald's on the way home since it took them so damned long they missed lunch and it's too late for it and dinner's in less than 2 hours.

[Beerina]

Actually, right down the street is a guy holding a $5 pizza sign in front of a Little Ceasar's. That's a better stop, I'd imagine.

[BPSCG]

The parking lot, shared with a bookstore and other businesses, is a disaster area of not enough spaces.Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that that's the situation at the Whole Foods around here. The one I'm planning to shoplift from has an underground parking garage full of turns that are tight even for my Korean rice-rocket. Then you either walk up a flight of stairs or take an elevator up to get get to the store.

[rwguinn]

By the way, I've shopped at the Whole Foods in Ann Arbor. The parking lot, shared with a bookstore and other businesses, is a disaster area of not enough spaces.

You go inside, and it's filled with late-50-something yuppies buying wierd greens with a confused look on their faces, then sampling cheese cubes, then walking over to those bizarre root thingies. Then they go down row after row of bulk human kibble and fill a bag with M&M-and-raisin-based, oversugared trail mix and haul out a few hundred at the cash register as they put it into bags they brought from home, then stop for a snack at McDonald's on the way home since it took them so damned long they missed lunch and it's too late for it and dinner's in less than 2 hours.

I resemble that remark--except
1. I am not foolish enough to believe all the hype about "natural" and "organic"
1a. I don't qualify as a former "Yuppie", or even a Hippie. I missed out on the "free love" (by "Thaaat much") and never got around to buying a Beamer...
2. I have never been able to buy anything with "...a confused look on (my) face.."--especially wierd greens. Every place I go wants cash, VISA, or Master Card.
3. I cannot stand McD,onalds or Lil Caesar.

[Darth Rotor]

NVM, pointless remark about the influence of tort on common sense deleted.

DR