I want to touch on a very um... touchy subject. But before I do, it is very important that I make a few quick but crucial disclaimers: The opinions I am about to express are that of myself alone and do not, in any way, reflect the opinions or policies of any past or current employer. Despite these opinions, I do not condone, nor will I participate in any behavior or conduct that violates company policies or any laws be they local, state, or federal. I am a firm believer and proponent of equal rights and the fair and equitable treatment of all people regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, cultural background, or sexual orientation. With that out of the way, I'd like to discuss profiling...
Every company I've worked for has required me to read and sign a document that outlines the company's policy against the profiling of a subject based on any classification that is federally protected (age, race, gender, etc.) While I have signed these documents and policies as required to obtain employment, I have never once agreed with the policy and I'll try to explain why.
When someone thinks of racial profiling, they almost always think of a police officer pulling over a black driver in a mostly-white neighborhood- simply because the driver is black. I believe the term most often used is "DWB" or "driving while black." Countless criminal cases have been dismissed based on charges that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, and that such a stop was initiated solely on the basis of racial profiling. Lawsuits have been filed in relation to the same incidents and law enforcement agencies have paid out millions of dollars to settle these cases. It is for these reasons that private entities that often engage in the arrest or detention of alleged criminals have adopted anti-profiling policies and require their agents to sign off on them. But I argue that you absolutely can not compare the two capacities and the nature of our work is so different to the point where these anti-profiling policies can not be applied to us. A police officer has the ability to initiate contact with a citizen, without consequence, for the purpose of questioning them and investigating them and does not require any type of probable cause simply to talk to them. We, on the other hand, can not even speak to a subject unless we have satisfied our version of probable cause (the 5 steps.) Doing so may constitute a "bad stop" and could result in the loss of our job and possible civil action. It is because of this very difference that I feel anti-profiling policies serve no purpose in our line of work. When no reason is required to initiate contact with a subject, the reason could be anything. However, when certain requirements are needed to initiate contact, then as long as we are doing our jobs, we shouldn't need to worry about someone calling our motives into question.
What is profiling anyway? Well, the term profiling has the generally-accepted definition as follows: "the use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity."
But the term "profile" when utilized in psychology means the following: "a description of behavioral and personality traits of a person compared with accepted norms or standards. "
It is the psychological definition that we use most often in our line of work. We look for people that exhibit behaviors that are not consistent with those of regular shoppers. We look for people that exhibit a specific set of behaviors: the darting eyes, the rapid selection of merchandise without regards to price, the nervous ticks and twitches, the avoidance of employees and customers... these are all consistent with the behavioral PROFILE of a shoplifter. If we are consistently looking for these behaviors in the people in our stores, aren't we "profiling?" Of course we are.
But lets get more gritty... I'm going to make a bold statement and I sincerely hope that it is taken in its intended context and does not come back to bite me in the ass later on. I would be willing to bet my career that every single loss prevention person has, at one time or another, engaged in the act of profiling based on a protected group. And this statement applies to loss prevention people of all groups. If you work in an upscale department store and a group of unaccompanied teenagers comes in, do you not pay a bit more attention to them? I know you do. If you work in a store that sells only women's clothing, would you not pay more attention to a male that enters the store? If you work in a predominantly black neighborhood, and a white guy walks into the store, you know you'd be curious about his intentions. You'd ask yourself, why would this guy be shopping here... because let's face it, people feel more comfortable when surrounded by people that are more like themselves. Here's a quick real-life example of how I have utilized racial profiling, my reasons behind it, and the successful conclusion. My first LP job was at a store in the city I grew up in. It is predominantly white upper-class. At the time, there were maybe 4 black families in the city and I was familiar, and friends, with most of them. A large mall had just recently been built in the city, but had yet to begin to attract large crowds from out of town. The company I worked for had probably 9 stores that were closer to the downtown metropolis than the store I worked at. So, taking all of these things into account, I immediately began watching a couple of subjects the moment they entered the store. They were the only black customers I had seen in the store in probably 3 days. It was a male/female couple with shabby clothing. His sneakers were stained and dirty. His jeans were torn. He wore a thermal long-sleeve shirt that had been white at one point in time, but had since turned into a shade of yellow. They entered the store with an obvious purpose and moved directly to the baby formula aisle where they completely filled the cart with cans of the product. Less than 2 minutes later, they attempted to push the cart out of the store without paying for the merchandise. They were apprehended and prosecuted for a felony. Almost $1,000.00 worth of baby formula almost walked out of the store. They were in and out in less than 2 minutes. If I had not immediately began watching them, because of their race, I most likely would have missed them. I knew the city. I knew the average clientele. And I knew that these people did not belong. Not because they were black, but because my gut instinct told me they were not right. The decision to initiate surveillance on a subject is usually made the minute we lay eyes on a person. You must observe someone for more than just a few seconds to notice any type of actual behavior. So if we watch someone long enough to notice their behavior, then why have we begun to watch them in the first place? You can not escape the fact that the answer is simply this: their appearance. How do we know if someone is acting suspicious if we're not already watching them? Why are we watching them unless something just seems out of place? It's the same as our attraction to other people. Sure, for most of us a good personality means more than stunning good looks- but we're not even getting to know the person well enough to know about their personality unless there is some type of physical attraction. This is all undeniable. I've had black fellow loss prevention people point subjects out to me in stores and say, "hey you better watch that chick, she looks kinda ghetto." And it's happened way more than once.
So, in summary, I'd like to say that I fully recognize and understand the fact that there is no race of people that is more likely to steal than another. Black people are just as likely to steal as white people as hispanic people as asian people etc. Although there is scientific proof that women are more likely to steal than men. I've caught 12 year olds. I've caught an 83 year old. Companies don't have these policies because they believe in them. They have them to cover their own asses.
I'm damn good at my job and I am NOT a racist. If the methods I've used over the years to identify shoplifters could be considered in violation of anti-profiling policies, then so be it. My methods work.
I am not watching you just because you are black, lady. If I was watching you just because you're black, I'd have to have a million more sets of eyes to watch everyone else in here- because in case you haven't noticed, I'm a minority in this store. I'm watching you because you're a shady bitch with a giant purse and there doesn't appear to be a fucking thing in it... now get off my back.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A Few Things That Really Piss Me Off Part 1...
It's been some time since I've posted anything new on here and over the last several months, I've been spending a great deal of time thinking about a few different issues that really piss me off. When I do have a few spare moments here and there, I sometimes look up shoplifting videos on YouTube. I'm a dork like that. And in just about every single case, I find some brainless fuckwit that thinks he knows the laws better than those of us in the business and leaves a comment such as this: "Hopefully the shoplifter hires a lawyer and sues that company because they're not allowed to touch you." Really? So what you're saying is that no employee hired by a company for the purposes of controlling theft within the store is allowed to utilize any type of physical force to detain a shoplifter? So... every retail location, in every state in the US, has a "hands-off" policy? It's illegal to place your hands on a shoplifter to keep them inside the store? Really? In 7 years that's news to me. Perhaps someone should write a letter to Brad Brekke (head of Target Corp. Assets Protection) and let him know that he should immediately cease and desist sending his new AP team members to classes that specifically teach them how to utilize physical force and techniques to detain shoplifters... because why would the head of security for one of the country's largest corporations advocate a class that trains its employees how to break the law? I guess there's really no reason for them to carry handcuffs either because, in order to handcuff someone you obviously must place your hands on them and that would be illegal too wouldn't it? Most security offices inside Target stores have handcuff benches and some even have holding cells. So I guess that anyone who might need to be placed inside a holding cell is going to go in willingly huh? Then what the fuck would be the point of a holding cell??
I just get so god damn aggravated with these people who think they know everything. Here are the FACTS:
Every single state in the US has passed "merchants protection" statutes. They may be called something different in each state, but they are basically all the same. They allow for a retailer, or an agent employed by the retailer, to protect the assets of the business and detain someone suspected of theft for the purposes of delivering them into the custody of law enforcement officials. These statutes do not regulate the methods by which a retailer can detain someone. The common understanding when acting under these statutes' authority is that one doesn't use "excessive force." If a guy tries to run, you can hold him in the store. You can take him to the ground and hold him down. If your company allows you to use handcuffs, you can use them. There is nothing that any public safety department can say or do to regulate the methods that a private business uses to protect themselves as long as their actions cannot be construed as criminal. For example: you cannot beat a shoplifter repeatedly in the head. You cannot use 7 guys and dog pile a shoplifter and pin them down. You cannot use any type of weapon to strike or inflict injury upon a fleeing subject. A retailer (grocery store, department store, convenience store, etc.) no matter how big or small can use reasonable force to detain a shoplifter. However, if a shoplifter sustains injury during the course of their detention, you can be sure that an investigation will take place and if it is proven that a retailer acted outside the scope of their authority or used excessive force, they can be held responsible both in civil and in criminal court.
The reason why I think so many people have this misconception about store security not being allowed to touch a shoplifter, is because of a company's individual policies. There are a lot of retailers out there that do have "no touch/no chase" policies, but these are specific to the companies and not because of any state or federal laws. These companies instill these policies purely for liability reasons. They are smart enough to realize that if their people can manage to verbally detain a shoplifter without getting into a physical struggle, then it's worth the risk. But no amount of stolen merchandise is worth an injury to any person or any subsequent law suit that WILL result from such an injury. If you look through the phone book, you'll find at least 50 local lawyers who would give their left nut (or breast) to take on a lawsuit against a retailer for excessive force resulting in injury. The potential payoff is enormous. The title of most retail security departments is "Loss Prevention." Many new "LP" people think that preventing just means catching thieves. What they fail to understand is that loss comes not only from a shoplifter but from liability lawsuits as well. And the potential loss from a liability lawsuit is far greater than a $15 DVD that some 15 year old kid is walking out of the store with.
It may seem like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth; like I'm both advocating and admonishing the physical apprehension of shoplifters. That's not the case. I fully support a retailer allowing their people to use physical techniques to detain a shoplifter as long as they hire mature responsible people who aren't "cop wannabes" and provide them with the proper training and education to do so. Now, it's important that I differentiate between a "cop wannabe" and someone who wants to pursue a career in law enforcement. A wannabe, to me, is someone who has attempted to become a police officer and for some reason or another has failed, and now LP is the closest thing they can get to law enforcement. This is very different from the young (or not-so-young) college student who is studying and training for a career in law enforcement and who is working in LP to get as much "real-world" criminal justice experience before going through the academy. There are also those of us, like myself, who decided from the outset to make this our career. Of course I considered law enforcement at one point in time, but over the years my priorities have changed and I learned early on that there is more money to be made within Loss Prevention. It's true that money isn't everything, but when you have a family to support, it becomes just slightly more important.
In almost 7 years of being in this line of work (I know, I know, you're probably getting tired of hearing me tell you how long I've been doing this), I've only been in maybe 6 physical altercations, one all-out foot chase, and maybe 2 other instances were the subject tried to flee. The foot chase occurred while working for a company that allowed them. The other two fleeing incidents occurred with a company that had a no-chase policy. In one of the cases, law enforcement successfully apprehended the subject only a few miles down the road. In the other case, the subject got away with about 15 DVD's. Two weeks later, he went into another one of our stores and was successfully apprehended. Due to the excellent CCTV coverage, we were able to charge him with the DVD theft from my store as well as several other charges that resulted from his violent attempts to flee the store. My point is that if you have the right person in the right position, you shouldn't have issues with implementing a no-touch/no-chase policy and still successfully apprehend shoplifters. Out of 100 shoplifters, maybe 15 will try to run. Out of those 15, maybe 8 will run regardless of how the agent approaches them. The other 7 will most likely return to the store without force if they are approached in a forceful yet respectful manner while using some creative language.
I cannot possibly begin to count the number of people I've apprehended over 7 years. A friend of mine works for another similar retailer and he's had over 200 apprehensions in the last 2 years. I average slightly more stops than him every month, mostly due to the fact that I work in worse neighborhoods, so you do the math. Let's make a conservative estimate and say I've apprehended 500 shoplifters in 7 years. The estimate is probably low but it doesn't matter. If in 500 or more apprehensions, I've only had 8 situations where I was not able to successfully talk the subject back to the office, what the hell is going on in the rest of the LP world?
Two things to consider before I wrap this up:
First- Wal Mart. Can someone please explain to me why in 4 months, there have been just as many shoplifting-related deaths? In three of those cases, it was the shoplifter that died. In every one of those cases, the amount of recovered merchandise was less than $300. In the fourth case, the shoplifter got so out-of-control that a non-LP employee "had" to jump in to help subdue the subject. I realize that other companies have experienced serious injuries and even deaths related to the apprehension of shoplifters. Wal Mart will always make the news quicker than any other company for the exact same story simply due to the nature of being Wal Mart. I can't believe, however, that any other company is experiencing the same number of injuries and fatalities as Wal Mart. Why are shoplifters dying in their custody? Why are other non-LP employees jumping in to subdue an out-of-control shoplifter. Physical force is one thing, but when the subject becomes that combative that we need to enlist others in our attempts to subdue them, we must ALWAYS make the decision to disengage from the apprehension. Law enforcement should have already been contacted and will most likely arrive soon enough to catch the person in the parking lot or nearby. Only if the shoplifter continues to attack us after we've disengaged from an uncontrollably violent offender, should we continue our attempts to subdue them and defend ourselves. I have to imagine that someone within Wal Mart's upper echelons is reviewing their LP policies and hopefully making some changes to reduce the likelihood of these things happening again the future.
Last, let us each consider this before we go out to apprehend our next shoplifter: How we approach the shoplifter and how we treat them once they are in our custody has effects that reach far beyond and long after they've been released. If you are rude, disrespectful, and over-aggressive with a shoplifter while confronting them, you will absolutely make them more difficult to handle for the next one of us that crosses their path. If you are professional, respectful, and authoritative in your approach and casual yet cautious throughout their detention, when and if that person re-offends, they will undoubtedly be easier for the next LP person to deal with.
That's all the ranting I can do for now.
I just get so god damn aggravated with these people who think they know everything. Here are the FACTS:
Every single state in the US has passed "merchants protection" statutes. They may be called something different in each state, but they are basically all the same. They allow for a retailer, or an agent employed by the retailer, to protect the assets of the business and detain someone suspected of theft for the purposes of delivering them into the custody of law enforcement officials. These statutes do not regulate the methods by which a retailer can detain someone. The common understanding when acting under these statutes' authority is that one doesn't use "excessive force." If a guy tries to run, you can hold him in the store. You can take him to the ground and hold him down. If your company allows you to use handcuffs, you can use them. There is nothing that any public safety department can say or do to regulate the methods that a private business uses to protect themselves as long as their actions cannot be construed as criminal. For example: you cannot beat a shoplifter repeatedly in the head. You cannot use 7 guys and dog pile a shoplifter and pin them down. You cannot use any type of weapon to strike or inflict injury upon a fleeing subject. A retailer (grocery store, department store, convenience store, etc.) no matter how big or small can use reasonable force to detain a shoplifter. However, if a shoplifter sustains injury during the course of their detention, you can be sure that an investigation will take place and if it is proven that a retailer acted outside the scope of their authority or used excessive force, they can be held responsible both in civil and in criminal court.
The reason why I think so many people have this misconception about store security not being allowed to touch a shoplifter, is because of a company's individual policies. There are a lot of retailers out there that do have "no touch/no chase" policies, but these are specific to the companies and not because of any state or federal laws. These companies instill these policies purely for liability reasons. They are smart enough to realize that if their people can manage to verbally detain a shoplifter without getting into a physical struggle, then it's worth the risk. But no amount of stolen merchandise is worth an injury to any person or any subsequent law suit that WILL result from such an injury. If you look through the phone book, you'll find at least 50 local lawyers who would give their left nut (or breast) to take on a lawsuit against a retailer for excessive force resulting in injury. The potential payoff is enormous. The title of most retail security departments is "Loss Prevention." Many new "LP" people think that preventing just means catching thieves. What they fail to understand is that loss comes not only from a shoplifter but from liability lawsuits as well. And the potential loss from a liability lawsuit is far greater than a $15 DVD that some 15 year old kid is walking out of the store with.
It may seem like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth; like I'm both advocating and admonishing the physical apprehension of shoplifters. That's not the case. I fully support a retailer allowing their people to use physical techniques to detain a shoplifter as long as they hire mature responsible people who aren't "cop wannabes" and provide them with the proper training and education to do so. Now, it's important that I differentiate between a "cop wannabe" and someone who wants to pursue a career in law enforcement. A wannabe, to me, is someone who has attempted to become a police officer and for some reason or another has failed, and now LP is the closest thing they can get to law enforcement. This is very different from the young (or not-so-young) college student who is studying and training for a career in law enforcement and who is working in LP to get as much "real-world" criminal justice experience before going through the academy. There are also those of us, like myself, who decided from the outset to make this our career. Of course I considered law enforcement at one point in time, but over the years my priorities have changed and I learned early on that there is more money to be made within Loss Prevention. It's true that money isn't everything, but when you have a family to support, it becomes just slightly more important.
In almost 7 years of being in this line of work (I know, I know, you're probably getting tired of hearing me tell you how long I've been doing this), I've only been in maybe 6 physical altercations, one all-out foot chase, and maybe 2 other instances were the subject tried to flee. The foot chase occurred while working for a company that allowed them. The other two fleeing incidents occurred with a company that had a no-chase policy. In one of the cases, law enforcement successfully apprehended the subject only a few miles down the road. In the other case, the subject got away with about 15 DVD's. Two weeks later, he went into another one of our stores and was successfully apprehended. Due to the excellent CCTV coverage, we were able to charge him with the DVD theft from my store as well as several other charges that resulted from his violent attempts to flee the store. My point is that if you have the right person in the right position, you shouldn't have issues with implementing a no-touch/no-chase policy and still successfully apprehend shoplifters. Out of 100 shoplifters, maybe 15 will try to run. Out of those 15, maybe 8 will run regardless of how the agent approaches them. The other 7 will most likely return to the store without force if they are approached in a forceful yet respectful manner while using some creative language.
I cannot possibly begin to count the number of people I've apprehended over 7 years. A friend of mine works for another similar retailer and he's had over 200 apprehensions in the last 2 years. I average slightly more stops than him every month, mostly due to the fact that I work in worse neighborhoods, so you do the math. Let's make a conservative estimate and say I've apprehended 500 shoplifters in 7 years. The estimate is probably low but it doesn't matter. If in 500 or more apprehensions, I've only had 8 situations where I was not able to successfully talk the subject back to the office, what the hell is going on in the rest of the LP world?
Two things to consider before I wrap this up:
First- Wal Mart. Can someone please explain to me why in 4 months, there have been just as many shoplifting-related deaths? In three of those cases, it was the shoplifter that died. In every one of those cases, the amount of recovered merchandise was less than $300. In the fourth case, the shoplifter got so out-of-control that a non-LP employee "had" to jump in to help subdue the subject. I realize that other companies have experienced serious injuries and even deaths related to the apprehension of shoplifters. Wal Mart will always make the news quicker than any other company for the exact same story simply due to the nature of being Wal Mart. I can't believe, however, that any other company is experiencing the same number of injuries and fatalities as Wal Mart. Why are shoplifters dying in their custody? Why are other non-LP employees jumping in to subdue an out-of-control shoplifter. Physical force is one thing, but when the subject becomes that combative that we need to enlist others in our attempts to subdue them, we must ALWAYS make the decision to disengage from the apprehension. Law enforcement should have already been contacted and will most likely arrive soon enough to catch the person in the parking lot or nearby. Only if the shoplifter continues to attack us after we've disengaged from an uncontrollably violent offender, should we continue our attempts to subdue them and defend ourselves. I have to imagine that someone within Wal Mart's upper echelons is reviewing their LP policies and hopefully making some changes to reduce the likelihood of these things happening again the future.
Last, let us each consider this before we go out to apprehend our next shoplifter: How we approach the shoplifter and how we treat them once they are in our custody has effects that reach far beyond and long after they've been released. If you are rude, disrespectful, and over-aggressive with a shoplifter while confronting them, you will absolutely make them more difficult to handle for the next one of us that crosses their path. If you are professional, respectful, and authoritative in your approach and casual yet cautious throughout their detention, when and if that person re-offends, they will undoubtedly be easier for the next LP person to deal with.
That's all the ranting I can do for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
