Shithole Cities

[TGS]

Perhaps an ignorant question but why don't these stores (Target, etc.) invest in armed private security? Thinking of @Totem Polars story about a friends robbery and how coop private security showed up and took care of business when the police couldn't/wouldn't. Is it a liability thing? Got to be a cheaper option than just watching your merchandise walk out the door or shutting down stores. I would think a couple of obviously armed rough looking characters at the entrance and exits aided by an eye in the sky would be quite the deterrent. Couple of examples made the word would spread.

You can hire all the private security in the world and it won't do anything since they can't do anything more than the police can.

There's no repercussion due to depolicing, which includes policies to not prosecute crimes by the respective DA of whichever city we choose to talk about. Even if the ne'er do wells get charged, they'll just get released with a summons to appear in court, and they'll never see the inside of a jail or any sort of actual punishment to discourage their behavior.

[Tuefelhunden]

I was thinking more of deterrence and apprehension than deadly force or for that matter even having to go hands on very often. There would obviously need to be rules of engagement. I do get the liability aspect though. Anyway, just musing and it seems there ought to be some practical ways to harden up their defenses against unchecked theft, violence and property destruction.

[Tuefelhunden]

Thanks TGS. Sad state of affairs.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Organized large groups of criminals or insurgents need organized large groups of opponents with perhaps the use of various degrees of force. Can't see that happening yet. The problem is the failure of our culture. Force isn't going to solve that with the levels we would accept.

[rdtompki]

No store probably wants to take on the legal horror show when their armed security guard shoots down a group of young folks. The legality of using lethal force to protect property is not on the side of the shooter. The case would have to be made that the guard or staff or customers were in fear of their lives or grievous bodily harm. Easier to move out and the hell with the neighborhood and the folks that live there.

I know a store across from a Jewish Center that did have said really well equipped guards. This was after the French massacres. The store had a large Kosher section and Jewish clientele along with the other goods. When they showed up, I asked one - Why? he pointed across the street where the center was. That's a different threat.

Do we want a couple of guys with ARs opening up on the thieves as they rush in?

Living in Idaho and avoiding the "big" city, Boise, my threat level while shopping at the local D&B Supply I estimate to be low, but if I'm in one of these stores experiencing a break-in by 10+ looters, some of which are very likely armed I
a. look to get out the back if I know where the rear exit is
b. Look for concealment
c. Think about defending myself if confronted

I get that most of there value shoppers are just looking to steal, but as a really fit but really old guy I'm going to feel pretty damn threatened. Not a great scenario. I carry everywhere; I don't know what I'd do in one of these hellholes if I couldn't get a permit.

[DDTSGM]

I was thinking more of deterrence and apprehension than deadly force or for that matter even having to go hands on very often. There would obviously need to be rules of engagement. I do get the liability aspect though. Anyway, just musing and it seems there ought to be some practical ways to harden up their defenses against unchecked theft, violence and property destruction.

Most simply put, the stores are less-worried about loss prevention than they are liability prevention.

In todays world when one of your store's security guards tries to detain 'Frankie' the 17 year-old serial shoplifter and ends up breaking his wrist, there will be lawyers crawling all over each other to help 'Frankie's' family escape poverty by suing you senseless.

Large companies and insurers retain folks to determine whether it would be less expensive to pay or settle. By-and-large most large retailers have determined it is less expensive to let folks take the merchandize and run. When it gets too bad, the honest ones, Target in this case, say 'crime killed this story and your jobs' and move on.

The other thing is that very often when you go to apprehend a fleeing subject, they fight. At some point during that fight they lose sight of the fact that it's only a shoplifting/theft beef and will do anything, including kill you, to get away. They might be remorseful later on, but in the stress of the situation, their rational thought process ceases to exist.

Several years ago one of of local Dillon's security guards followed a guy into the parking lot to apprehend him for shoplifting a Maxim magazine. The guard was acting outside store policy, probably because his ego 'required' him to do so. He got knifed and almost died in the parking lot.

The guy who did it sure wasn't thinking, 'hey, this is a cite and release Municipal Court deal' Nope, his was thought, 'oh, shit, I'm caught, gotta get away' with no thought of the consequences.

Folks die all the time because they expect folks to react rationally.

[mmc45414]

I was thinking more of deterrence and apprehension than deadly force

You can hire all the private security in the world and it won't do anything since they can't do anything more than the police can.

When ya think about in reverse, if you were watching somebody snag a package of Huggies and walk out the door, at no point would it be rational to plug em.
ETA: And they are not deterred, because the criminals know so. Unless they introduce the violence they will not be violently confronted, and if in some crazy circumstance they actually go to jail, they will be fed a baloney sandwich and let go, because the jail is full. Big news story here that the county is about to spend a bunch of money upgrading the jail, apparently in response to many negative Yelp reviews...

Anyway, just musing and it seems there ought to be some practical ways to harden up their defenses against unchecked theft, violence and property destruction.

When it gets too bad, the honest ones, Target in this case, say 'crime killed this story and your jobs' and move on.

Dang ol' math is a brutal bitch. The way they harden the target is to lock up the doors the best they can and screw plywood over the glass.
Yesterday my errands took me past the site of the former shopping mall I mentioned yesterday. Here is a streetview snip of the grocery that used to be up the street:



People just simply go someplace else, and then the people that went someplace else whine about the underserved food deserts left in the places they moved away from.

I should mention here after the last few postings that I consider myself to live in a pretty nice place, on a dead-end street on a partially wooded lot with conservancy land behind me, but I do not need to be very far out and about to want to keep my powder dry, depending on what way I head when I leave.

[Borderland]

Most simply put, the stores are less-worried about loss prevention than they are liability prevention.

In todays world when one of your store's security guards tries to detain 'Frankie' the 17 year-old serial shoplifter and ends up breaking his wrist, there will be lawyers crawling all over each other to help 'Frankie's' family escape poverty by suing you senseless.

Large companies and insurers retain folks to determine whether it would be less expensive to pay or settle. By-and-large most large retailers have determined it is less expensive to let folks take the merchandize and run. When it gets too bad, the honest ones, Target in this case, say 'crime killed this story and your jobs' and move on.

The other thing is that very often when you go to apprehend a fleeing subject, they fight. At some point during that fight they lose sight of the fact that it's only a shoplifting/theft beef and will do anything, including kill you, to get away. They might be remorseful later on, but in the stress of the situation, their rational thought process ceases to exist.

Several years ago one of of local Dillon's security guards followed a guy into the parking lot to apprehend him for shoplifting a Maxim magazine. The guard was acting outside store policy, probably because his ego 'required' him to do so. He got knifed and almost died in the parking lot.

The guy who did it sure wasn't thinking, 'hey, this is a cite and release Municipal Court deal' Nope, his was thought, 'oh, shit, I'm caught, gotta get away' with no thought of the consequences.

Folks die all the time because they expect folks to react rationally.

Not to change the subject but to reinforce the escalation of avoiding the collar, high speed car chases seem to be more common these days also.

Home delivery seems to be replacing a lot of brick and mortar stores. Both of my neighbors use a home delivery service for groceries and the Amazon truck rolls down our road every day.

[mmc45414]

Not to change the subject but to reinforce the escalation of avoiding the collar, high speed car chases seem to be more common these days also.

That is another thing that varies significantly by jurisdiction. Here the core city PD had a very limited policy on justifying chases, and I am pretty sure the folks participating in the dirt bike/ATV street takeovers are well aware they will not be pursued.


And the Mopar Mafia wouldn't want to be left out:


From time to time the troopers and Sheriff's office will do a task force on the state routes to suppress some of the shenanigans like 30-40mph over and passing in the center turn lane and running red lights, but it comes back.

[DDTSGM]

That is another thing that varies significantly by jurisdiction. Here the core city PD had a very limited policy on justifying chases, and I am pretty sure the folks participating in the dirt bike/ATV street takeovers are well aware they will not be pursued.

From time to time the troopers and Sheriff's office will do a task force on the state routes to suppress some of the shenanigans like 30-40mph over and passing in the center turn lane and running red lights, but it comes back.

I don't think 'reality' show's like Street Outlaws help any.

Any PD that doesn't have and enforce a limited pursuit policy is just asking to be sued shitless. A limited pursuit policy (as you put it) shouldn't mean no pursuits for anything, just critical forethought on what justifies the pursuit initially, and constant evaluation by supervisors of the conditions that exist in the pursuit area.

I'm sure we all think we are responsible, mature adults, but a lot of that goes out the window when someone runs on you. If you've watched many pursuit or emergency response videos with a critical eye, you see how fast strategic thinking disappears during those events.

The state of both initial and in-service LE firearms training leaves a lot to be desired in most regions. The state of initial and in-service EVO training is worse, much worse.

JMO, YMMV