Retail Loss Prevention, what a crock of shit!

[Necroplant]

I was scouting jobs, and as per the usual bullshit positions I skip by, one of them was "retail loss prevention officer". A noble profession I suppose, considering you aren't fucking allowed to touch thieves!

The universal law in the Western world, is that thieves stealing from a store cannot be touched. In fact, usually a thief has immunity against being caught OUTSIDE the store, even if they're on public property. Take the case of David Chen, a Toronto hero. He ran the Lucky Moose Food Market, and this black dude steals $60 worth of flower plants (even admitted in court he was coming back later to steal more). David Chen and two others ran out, caught him, tied him up and threw him in a van. Of course, the "Crown" said that was illegal, and he was nearly put in jail himself for protecting his goods and livelihood. Don't worry, he was released to much fanfare.

The latest one involves an East Indian restaurant owner who finally caught a thief who repeatedly tried to break into the restaurant (which is also their home). He's called the police multiple times, and they did fuck all. Finally, he decided to wait for the thief to come, and this time he was trying to break into his personal vehicle and steal his GPS unit. They scuffled, and the owner threw spices in the thief's face, and chased him. He called police, the guy was arrested, but released because "the evidence was inconclusive". They decided to charge the restaurant owner instead for assaulting a known thief.

Yes, there is a Canadian law that says "Thieves have advanced protections under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms."

There must be a Daedric Lord that is controlling judges in our world. Telling them "No, you must not do the right thing - punish the hero instead."

I've worked retail, and never did I attempt to prevent theft. Because you're trained NOT TO! Safety is probably the #1 reason, and the #2 reason is the piss-poor wage you're earning at the same as chasing a thief. The third reason is you will probably go to jail.

Tiger Direct: at one of our quarterly store meetings, the manager revealed how much theft we suffer each quarter: $40,000. That means in 3 months, we let $40,000 walk out the door. One time, they had a big scandal because there were i7 Extreme chips missing from their boxes...in the lockup room with CAMERAS. DERPY DERP, THEY COULDN'T FIND WHO DID IT!!! It's called watching the security footage, and waiting for a blue-shirted employee to reach on the cpu shelf. So here is the advanced security feature that we implemented:

Example: I have a bag full of my shit, I open it so the manager can look inside before I leave, and they don't even touch it. They just look and say "Okay." They have no idea what I could've buried at the bottom. One manager said once "We're not allowed to touch employees or their personal property." Effective policy. You might as well not look at all, and save us time. Some of us have to catch the bus.

Then I worked at Canada Computers (a very similar store). Their policy is the opposite extreme: you have your bag VISIBLY searched (no touching), and you have to have your body wanded with a metal detector before you leave the store. This includes:

-taking out the trash
-helping a customer take products to their car
-going out for lunch
-going on a smoke break
-leaving the store at the end of the day

We shouldn't cut off their hands, but why can't the law regard them for what they are: thieves?

Perhaps thieves are super-intelligent? Perhaps they went to law school, and realized "Holy shit, I can make a killing by stealing shit in Canada!"

Plus, thieves make life harder for the rest of us. If a company regularly suffers retail losses caused by theft, they may start to lay people off, or raise prices. So a thief just makes things more expensive for the rest of us.

P.S. One of my older friends, the one who introduced me to pot, was caught shoplifting at the LCBO years ago. When I had a friend over at his house and asked what he learned from this experience, he said "I guess I won't be stealing booze for awhile." Awhile.

[Admiral]

In most cases Loss Prevention is actually more geared towards the employees.

[Raptorblaze]

In most cases Loss Prevention is actually more geared towards the employees.

Yeah this is how it is at my store. LP is trained more to prevent employee theft than anything else (also they consider "wasting company time" as theft... dafuq) though my manager (a former LP member) has been known to outright tackle thieves and hold them on the ground. It probably helps that 99% of our customers live in the ghetto and couldn't afford the air a lawyer farts out.

[Anti-Defamation League]

If the thief happens to be Jewish, he's in safe hands with us.

[Dr. Kevorkian]

I have much to offer you, Necroplant. You have complaints. I have a solution. I think we would make a great team.

[Necroplant]

Yeah this is how it is at my store. LP is trained more to prevent employee theft than anything else (also they consider "wasting company time" as theft... dafuq) though my manager (a former LP member) has been known to outright tackle thieves and hold them on the ground. It probably helps that 99% of our customers live in the ghetto and couldn't afford the air a lawyer farts out.

You see, tackling should be fine, as long as if the person is innocent, they are given a $500 gift card after an apology. What about this:

The manager finds out where the thief lives, and smashes his car, and steals his stuff. Since thieves are practically immune to prosecution, even when caught in the act, why can't managers reclaim losses through theft, too?

[NettleS]

cops are more interested in catching folks doing 3 mph over the speed limit , thats where the money is

[Necroplant]

cops are more interested in catching folks doing 3 mph over the speed limit , thats where the money is

I guess that's where the frustration lies. David Chen realized that cops didn't really give a shit about a known thief, so he took things into his own hands. He didn't know about the law that says "Even though cops won't prevent or prosecute theft, you aren't allowed either."

As much as I hate Stephen Harper (our Prime Minister), he has proposed a bill that would ensure that people like David Chen will no longer face persecution for detaining thieves, as long as they don't beat them up of course.

Hey, speaking of theft, you know the kid who played Crabbe in Harry Potter? He was arrested and convicted for playing a huge part in the London Riots, like he was actually committing theft too. He's going to jail.

[Admiral]

cops are more interested in catching folks doing 3 mph over the speed limit , thats where the money is

For what it's worth, that case would probably get thrown out of court.

[Raptorblaze]

cops are more interested in catching folks doing 3 mph over the speed limit , thats where the money is

The cops where I live won't even pull someone over unless its more than 5 mph over the limit, anything less can be explained away as "technical issues" with your speedometer. Did you know most speedometers are off by around 3 mph? The discrepancy changes as you accelerate more too.

[Necroplant]

I've learned that if you travel in the boonies, you BETTER watch your speed! I got raped by a speeding ticket for 10km/hr over the limit. There is nothing to do in the boonies for cops but trap speeders.

Some insane speeders should not only be fined, but be run over by their own vehicle as capital punishment. BMW drivers in particular.

[Duzero]

Are the laws different in canada than usa? You can't shoot robbers there?

[Admiral]

Are the laws different in canada than usa? You can't shoot robbers there?

You can't shoot anyone in most States in America unless your life is being threatened. The second you are not in imminent danger, you are no longer able to squeeze a shot. Even in stand your ground states "he approached me so I shot him" isn't likely going to hold up in court.

[Necroplant]

You can't shoot anyone in most States in America unless your life is being threatened. The second you are not in imminent danger, you are no longer able to squeeze a shot. Even in stand your ground states "he approached me so I shot him" isn't likely going to hold up in court.

Well I'm not trying to turn this into a Martins vs. Zimmerman flame-war, but imagine if the Martins hadn't fought so hard to have George Zimmerman arrested? So far, we haven't received an answer to why George Zimmerman had a gash on his head (which he said Trayvon caused). But so far, the facts seem to say a little black boy approached him and he shot him.

If they hadn't fought so hard the "he approached me so I shot him" wouldn't have been taken further than his subsequent release from the police station.

However, my old buddy who has family in Romania said that it's legal in Romania to kill Gypsies on-sight, because they aren't even regarded as citizens or human beings under certain laws of Eastern European countries. I have to read up more on that.

[Duzero]

You can't shoot anyone in most States in America unless your life is being threatened. The second you are not in imminent danger, you are no longer able to squeeze a shot. Even in stand your ground states "he approached me so I shot him" isn't likely going to hold up in court.

Hmm, so criminals are safe worldwide ^^

[Admiral]

Well I'm not trying to turn this into a Martins vs. Zimmerman flame-war, but imagine if the Martins hadn't fought so hard to have George Zimmerman arrested? So far, we haven't received an answer to why George Zimmerman had a gash on his head (which he said Trayvon caused). But so far, the facts seem to say a little black boy approached him and he shot him.

If they hadn't fought so hard the "he approached me so I shot him" wouldn't have been taken further than his subsequent release from the police station.

However, my old buddy who has family in Romania said that it's legal in Romania to kill Gypsies on-sight, because they aren't even regarded as citizens or human beings under certain laws of Eastern European countries. I have to read up more on that.

"He approached me so I shot him" is different than if he was actually attacked. As for the arrest, there's a such thing as Double Jeopardy. You don't want to push for a case you can't argue.

[Necroplant]

Well the burden is on Zimmerman's side of the bench, as he has to successfully prove that Trayvon knocked him to the ground, causing a gash in his head. Then the use of a gun is understandable.

That's the thing about having a firearm, you're going to use it instinctively if you're threatened. I guess there will never be a law package that protects gun owners (and their innocent victims) appropriately and fairly.

Here, we need another example of how poorly this law was thought-out. https://ybor.wtsp.com/news/crime/1118...nd-your-ground

Yep, road-rage, an acceptable solution is STABBING the other person. The guy is walking free right now.

I guess if one were to argue "where's the middle-ground state?" because outside of Florida, even obvious self-defense murders put you behind bars usually. In Florida, it seems you can get off scot-free, as long as you're not black. This poor women did the same thing George Zimmerman did, except she didn't even kill the person! Zimmerman gets to walk after murdering someone, but she gets to spend 20 years behind bars and she didn't even harm her husband, who admitted later that he WAS going to hurt her if she hadn't had the gun. https://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor..._applied_.html

The middle-ground country is Africa, particularly Sudan. I don't even know if they have murder laws, but you can kill anyone you want in the desert and nobody will give a fuck. You could shot from Mt.Kilimanjaro, or email the United Nations and admit your crimes. You can commit genocide openly and nobody will do anything. Sudan's the place to be.