Sensormatic Security Tags-4 WC Blog 703
Stop Shoplifting -3
Risky Business: Trying To Stop Shoplifting Can Be Dangerous!
Recently I read an article about a shooting during an attempt to stop shoplifting and afterwards wanted to ask why the Loss Prevention Associates continued with the apprehension. The story was posted in Loss Prevention Media Insider on Oct. 29, 2018, from the source ABC7 EYEWITNESS NEWS. According to the post a man and woman entered the grocery store with a 6-month old in a baby carrier. They reportedly put merchandise in the carrier and tried to exit. It was noted that L.P. personnel attempted to stop the suspects and the man pulled a gun and fired at them. I want to pause right here. I have been in Loss Prevention in stores for over 17 years. I have been threatened with a knife more than once. I have had one shoplifter lift his shirt and show me the butt of a gun in his waistband. He threatened to shoot if I tried to stop him. In those situations where I was threatened and a weapon was presented I backed off. I take no issue with stopping and apprehending shoplifters. In fact I think it is foolish to not prosecute them but that is another story. I also believe store owners minimize the risk of such incidents from ever happening when they use Sensormatic security tags on merchandise. I will finish my thoughts on this incident in a minute or two. But it is important to talk about the value of retail anti-theft devices in deterring the criminal activity in the first place.
I am a firm advocate of the use of Sensormatic security tags not only for the reduction of losses as stores use them to stop shoplifting. I am of the belief that retail anti-theft devices decrease the risk of violent criminal activity. I look at it from the perspective of someone who has had physical altercations with many shoplifters who were trying to steal merchandise that they did not think was tagged. After finally subduing a suspect and getting them to a point where they would talk to me rationally I would hear such things as, “I didn’t think there was security in the store” or “I didn’t think the cameras were real”. I also heard the excuse, “I didn’t see any security tags on it.” Excuses are just that, excuses but the fact remains if this is the way shoplifters think then it is important to ensure they know a store is using (hopefully) a variety of theft prevention measures. When criminals know that a store is equipped with security measures they tend to look for easier targets. This includes the dangerous segment of shoplifters who may be armed. While they may be more aggressive if confronted they aren’t actively looking for the police to be called due to their activity and try to avoid detection. A perfect example is the couple in the story above as they used an infant carrier to try to conceal their theft activity. Sensormatic security tags and other deterrent tools can help redirect these people to other stores, especially if signage indicates that the store uses theft prevention devices.
Getting back to the story I want to be clear I do not have all of the details and I did try to find several sources of information. I don’t know if the shoplifter was stopped and pulled out the gun immediately firing a shot or if he brandished the weapon and the L.P. staff chose to try to disarm him and a shot discharged. I do know that a baby and bystanders were at risk and certainly the L.P. Associates were endangered. If the assailant pulled his gun and immediately shot at the Associates I can understand if the first response they had was to try to disarm him to protect themselves from harm. When stopping a shoplifter training generally dictates keeping an arms-length distance from the suspect. It gives space to protect against a punch but remain close enough to prevent the suspect from running. If this was the scenario, the Associates would not have had enough distance to disengage if the suspect was shooting. They may have taken the only action available. If the suspect only showed the weapon and they chose to wrestle it away I would condemn that action. If a store chooses to stop shoplifting by apprehending and prosecuting shoplifters rule one must be safety and that includes disengaging when it becomes dangerous and call authorities.
Store owners you may decide you want to stop shoplifters. Before you make this decision get the proper training. Contact Loss Prevention Systems, Inc. and find out about the training programs they offer. They also consult on the benefits of using Sensormatic security tags to deter shoplifting and violent activity. Remember: Safety First, in all you do!
Need information on Sensormatic security tags? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
Recently I read an article about a shooting during an attempt to stop shoplifting and afterwards wanted to ask why the Loss Prevention Associates continued with the apprehension. The story was posted in Loss Prevention Media Insider on Oct. 29, 2018, from the source ABC7 EYEWITNESS NEWS. According to the post a man and woman entered the grocery store with a 6-month old in a baby carrier. They reportedly put merchandise in the carrier and tried to exit. It was noted that L.P. personnel attempted to stop the suspects and the man pulled a gun and fired at them. I want to pause right here. I have been in Loss Prevention in stores for over 17 years. I have been threatened with a knife more than once. I have had one shoplifter lift his shirt and show me the butt of a gun in his waistband. He threatened to shoot if I tried to stop him. In those situations where I was threatened and a weapon was presented I backed off. I take no issue with stopping and apprehending shoplifters. In fact I think it is foolish to not prosecute them but that is another story. I also believe store owners minimize the risk of such incidents from ever happening when they use Sensormatic security tags on merchandise. I will finish my thoughts on this incident in a minute or two. But it is important to talk about the value of retail anti-theft devices in deterring the criminal activity in the first place.
I am a firm advocate of the use of Sensormatic security tags not only for the reduction of losses as stores use them to stop shoplifting. I am of the belief that retail anti-theft devices decrease the risk of violent criminal activity. I look at it from the perspective of someone who has had physical altercations with many shoplifters who were trying to steal merchandise that they did not think was tagged. After finally subduing a suspect and getting them to a point where they would talk to me rationally I would hear such things as, “I didn’t think there was security in the store” or “I didn’t think the cameras were real”. I also heard the excuse, “I didn’t see any security tags on it.” Excuses are just that, excuses but the fact remains if this is the way shoplifters think then it is important to ensure they know a store is using (hopefully) a variety of theft prevention measures. When criminals know that a store is equipped with security measures they tend to look for easier targets. This includes the dangerous segment of shoplifters who may be armed. While they may be more aggressive if confronted they aren’t actively looking for the police to be called due to their activity and try to avoid detection. A perfect example is the couple in the story above as they used an infant carrier to try to conceal their theft activity. Sensormatic security tags and other deterrent tools can help redirect these people to other stores, especially if signage indicates that the store uses theft prevention devices.
Getting back to the story I want to be clear I do not have all of the details and I did try to find several sources of information. I don’t know if the shoplifter was stopped and pulled out the gun immediately firing a shot or if he brandished the weapon and the L.P. staff chose to try to disarm him and a shot discharged. I do know that a baby and bystanders were at risk and certainly the L.P. Associates were endangered. If the assailant pulled his gun and immediately shot at the Associates I can understand if the first response they had was to try to disarm him to protect themselves from harm. When stopping a shoplifter training generally dictates keeping an arms-length distance from the suspect. It gives space to protect against a punch but remain close enough to prevent the suspect from running. If this was the scenario, the Associates would not have had enough distance to disengage if the suspect was shooting. They may have taken the only action available. If the suspect only showed the weapon and they chose to wrestle it away I would condemn that action. If a store chooses to stop shoplifting by apprehending and prosecuting shoplifters rule one must be safety and that includes disengaging when it becomes dangerous and call authorities.
Store owners you may decide you want to stop shoplifters. Before you make this decision get the proper training. Contact Loss Prevention Systems, Inc. and find out about the training programs they offer. They also consult on the benefits of using Sensormatic security tags to deter shoplifting and violent activity. Remember: Safety First, in all you do!
Need information on Sensormatic security tags? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
