Have retailers in Phoenix given up on combating theft?

[kell490]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

It's no exaggeration about how store employees used to be forceful with shoplifters. There was no tolerance for stealing back in the day. You can even watch season 3, episode 6 of "All in the Family" from 1972 as a good example. Unfortunately, it has reached the point where stealing is considered a "petty offense", and thieves are hardly ever approached anymore. It's not just here in Phoenix, but pretty much all over the nation. It's prevalent here because larger cities naturally have more people, and therefore, more crime.



The sad part is: store employees aren't allowed to carry guns to defend themselves against criminals who use weapons to threaten and/or kill innocent people!

Stores don't want to be on the hook when an employee shoots the wrong person. The correct thing to do is hire armed security guards who have insurance, and the proper training. Walmart hires off duty police officers who have immunity from lawsuits if the shooting was within department policy.

[mborner]

Originally Posted by kell490

Stores don't want to be on the hook when an employee shoots the wrong person. The correct thing to do is hire armed security guards who have insurance, and the proper training. Walmart hires off duty police officers who have immunity from lawsuits if the shooting was within department policy.

Immunity from lawsuits for shooting people? Where did you read that? Can you post a link that describes the verbiage? I'm afraid nobody is immune from lawsuits. Any body can sue any body for almost any reason. I'm afraid if you shoot somebody, even if you are a police officer justified in doing so, you're going to get sued, either criminally, or civilly. Off duty police inside a Walmart shooting a suspected shoplifter? Yea, that cop is going to prison unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his life was in danger. That means he/she has to prove self defense. There is no such thing as "immunity from lawsuits".

[cjs123]

I have never seen an employee go after a thief; no doubt they didn't want to get attacked/killed over merchandise and (I assume) were also following store guidelines. In one case the employees couldn't remotely agree on the description of the shoplifters, so I doubt anyone was ever going to be identified.

Years ago I saw a cop chase somebody around the side of a store but I don't know if they were apprehended.

I've been in stores (or parking lots) as long ago as the 1990s and as recently as this morning (Quik Trip) where somebody walked out with one or more items. A QT employee said it happens all day long.

There's a Fry's I stop at now and then and I was (pleasantly) surprised to see an officer there. He said they assign police at certain locations on weekends (including Friday nights) to watch for shoplifters and drug deals in the parking lots. I can't recall the last time I saw a security guard, armed or otherwise, at any retail establishment.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by mborner

Immunity from lawsuits for shooting people? Where did you read that? Can you post a link that describes the verbiage? I'm afraid nobody is immune from lawsuits. Any body can sue any body for almost any reason. I'm afraid if you shoot somebody, even if you are a police officer justified in doing so, you're going to get sued, either criminally, or civilly. Off duty police inside a Walmart shooting a suspected shoplifter? Yea, that cop is going to prison unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his life was in danger. That means he/she has to prove self defense. There is no such thing as "immunity from lawsuits".

Indeed, the laws do not look at shoplifting as being a capital offense. All the cop can do is try and make an arrest. If the shoplifter resists then things could get ugly from there.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by cjs123

I have never seen an employee go after a thief; no doubt they didn't want to get attacked/killed over merchandise and (I assume) were also following store guidelines. In one case the employees couldn't remotely agree on the description of the shoplifters, so I doubt anyone was ever going to be identified.

Years ago I saw a cop chase somebody around the side of a store but I don't know if they were apprehended.

I've been in stores (or parking lots) as long ago as the 1990s and as recently as this morning (Quik Trip) where somebody walked out with one or more items. A QT employee said it happens all day long.

There's a Fry's I stop at now and then and I was (pleasantly) surprised to see an officer there. He said they assign police at certain locations on weekends (including Friday nights) to watch for shoplifters and drug deals in the parking lots. I can't recall the last time I saw a security guard, armed or otherwise, at any retail establishment.

But you'd better believe that at least here in Arizona there will be some customers that are LAWFULLY ARMED. However we are not justified or authorized in preventing shoplifting or drug deals going on outside. All we can do is notify the store manager or call the police. We had to do that once when we saw this individual going from vehicle to vehicle looking for one's that were unlocked. If someone barges through the door and indiscriminately starts shooting people then we have every right to try and save our own lives and that of other innocent people.

[kell490]

Originally Posted by mborner

Immunity from lawsuits for shooting people? Where did you read that? Can you post a link that describes the verbiage? I'm afraid nobody is immune from lawsuits. Any body can sue any body for almost any reason. I'm afraid if you shoot somebody, even if you are a police officer justified in doing so, you're going to get sued, either criminally, or civilly. Off duty police inside a Walmart shooting a suspected shoplifter? Yea, that cop is going to prison unless he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his life was in danger. That means he/she has to prove self defense. There is no such thing as "immunity from lawsuits".

https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-crimi...ified-immunity


The Supreme Court has offered multiple justifications for qualified immunity, including that it encourages government officials to “unflinching[ly] discharge . . . their duties” without worrying about being sued for actions a court has not yet held violate the constitution.

The Supreme Court has held that use of force by police and correctional officers violates the Fourth Amendment when it is “excessive.” Police and correctional officers receive qualified immunity if it isn’t clearly established that their use of force was excessive. According to the Supreme Court, while qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point,” it does require that “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”