I wonder how many of these have to happen before communities wake up. Don't like these stores closing down making you have to go across town to shop, do something about it. So far your voting records and candidate's policies aren't cutting it.

Another "Get what you vote for" example.

Chicago is showing the way, Government run food stores.
Make the population dependent on government for everyday food == 95 million votes.

Yeah, many of them do get what they vote for and continue to vote for dems/marxists, but there's a problem: If they vote for a republican, they often get a RINO instead.

See Texas

Not a chain but this happened on Friday in SF. A clerk that tried to stop a thief for the third time that day was set on fire by the perp and got second and third degree burns on his head.

Where is the breaking point?

The Costco that's left there is about to see smash and grab theft in their store too now that Target is gone.

Costco, extremely liberal management, thinks they are immune. Ha ha.

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

They would be closing the Minneapolis store as well if it wasn't their headquarters. Instead, products are behind glass.
I know a store manager - it is amazing how little they do to prevent theft. They lose about 3%/year to "shrinkage".

Logos Stick said:

---

The Costco that's left there is about to see smash and grab theft in their store too now that Target is gone.

Costco, extremely liberal management, thinks they are immune. Ha ha.

---

They know they aren't.

Corporations eat losses but keep stores open to keep the politicians happy and stay in their good books.

As the immigration crisis proves, well off white leftists never care until it starts affecting their daily lives in their lily white enclaves

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

Safeway closing in Santa Clara, CA as well. Places with wonderful climates overrun by outlaws.

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

Why waste time trying to stop bad guys? If you catch them, you risk injury or death. Also, if you touch them, you risk being charged by the pro-criminal dim DAs.

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Good point, I was just looking to understand. Hopefully these stores will start hiring security guards that can and will take action. I'm sure it would be cheaper than the losses they're taking.

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because they're watching the thief steal things they have to pay for, and if they/all "low level retail workers" adopted the thief's behavior nobody could trust anyone, and the system would devolve into anarchy? Who wants to work at a store where they have to pay for things that others can just take without consequences?

Is that even a thought on your mind? It's definitely the first & most prominent thing that I think of with respect to the scenario.

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because they're watching the thief steal things they have to pay for, and if they/all "low level retail workers" adopted the thief's behavior nobody could trust anyone, and the system would devolve into anarchy?

Is that even a thought on your mind? It's definitely the first & most prominent thing that I think of with respect to the scenario.

---

My 17 year old son has been working at Home Depot for almost a year and a half. He works the registers primarily at all three desks. If he sees someone clearly shoplifting he'll take a picture of them but that is about all they are authorized to do. They report it to time stamp it so security can look at the camera footage. There are literally cameras everywhere. From there it is reported to the cops.

Why would I want my son to get in to a physical altercation over it? I don't want him to get his jaw broken by some thug over a lifted Ryobi drill. Or end up getting sued. Not worth it. Thankfully where we live it's not common but last summer he did have a guy push a brand new commode at the door and got away with it.

I would support an ED209 to mow them down in the parking lot though.

Two things....

1. I'm not suggesting employees fix the problem, and I dont think anyone expects that to be the case. But they certainly should expect their employer to. Just look at Target, having to close stores which were previously profitable. If it's hurting your business, you better focus on a solution.

2. Secondly, it's not just employees who have their hands tied behind their backs. Even stores with trained security personnel aren't allowed to do anything. That's ridiculous.


Decriminalizing theft is a State-wide policy in many cases. Those States are idiotic...but you dont think it will spread? It already is. If Newsom runs, this would be one of the key aspects of his State I would hammer relentlessly (along with their crime rates, and drug/homeless issues).

If you let criminals operate without recourse, you simply encourage the creation of more criminals. We defund the police, and then wonder why they don't have the manpower to help. We decriminalize theft to compensate...which obviously just increases theft...and then we suggest running the man whose in charge of the worst State in this regard as a POTUS candidate.

Common sense is dead.

Quote:

---

The Costco that's left there is about to see smash and grab theft in their store too now that Target is gone.

Costco, extremely liberal management, thinks they are immune. Ha ha.

---

Actually, you have to show the receipt at the door to exit Costco, that will be a major deterrent for the would be thieves.

deddog said:

---

Chicago is showing the way, Government run food stores.
Make the population dependent on government for everyday food == 95 million votes.

---

Yep, they will have it such that anyone with a welfare card or who is a registered democrat can early vote at register #1, register #2, register #3, etc. when they check out.

"Welcome to Costco. I love you."


I guess one thing Idiotocracy got wrong was the amount of theft.

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because morally it is the right thing to do because I was raised that way? I'm pretty stupid and will step in if the situation appears to be approachable. Guess I have it coming to me someday but I'll call out people that litter, yell at people to slow down in the neighborhood and other jackass stuff. I'm not going to cure the insanity, but I can at least try to make a difference. Go ahead and keep voting for it though. You are really helping out.

The bad people will just move to the red states. You know this is the plan.

In the early 80s my cousin worked security at a Safeway in Garland. No gun, but he had a set of handcuffs and a ton of stories about shoplifters he confronted, wrestled, and put a beatdown on. Times have certainly changed. This was when he was 18-22 years old, and not being the college type (eventually became an electrician), it was the perfect job for a testosterone-filled young man.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because morally it is the right thing to do because I was raised that way? I'm pretty stupid and will step in if the situation appears to be approachable. Guess I have it coming to me someday but I'll call out people that litter, yell at people to slow down in the neighborhood and other jackass stuff. I'm not going to cure the insanity, but I can at least try to make a difference. Go ahead and keep voting for it though. You are really helping out.

---

And in an example cited here, the store employee did just that, tried to talk with the guy. He wouldn't listen. At that point it is downright idiotic to expect a lowly employee to physically restrain the thief like it would be dumb for you to grab a teenager by the scruff of his neck to stop him from walking across your lawn.

deddog said:

---

Chicago is showing the way, Government run food stores.
Make the population dependent on government for everyday food == 95 million votes.

---

What is the book where the university sets up a convenience store for the athletes to knock off without involving the police? This sounds like that, except for the general public.

In this day and age, you are correct

Unfortunately I suspect as stores close in those crime riddled neighborhoods the thieves will venture out into the surrounding neighborhoods and the cycle will continue.

Thanks to the Democratic Party leadership, their minions in the bureaucracies and the MSM. People complain about the cable news networks such as CNN, MSNBC P, etc. But they are so transparent, I reserve most of my disgust for the major news channels like ABC, NBC and CBS. They couch their bias in the use of adjectives describing conservatives such as MAGA, ultra MAGA, far right wing or in the case of the leftists describing them as compassionate, fearful, victims, etc.

We do not have an unbiased major news media that I have found. For the most part Fox, Newsmax, etc, make it known they are opinion programs and not straight up news.

This happened in DC in the 1990s

of course, the response by the residents was:

"Target/Walmart/Giant/Teeter are racist by avoiding black neighborhoods!!"

When George Soros reads about another store closing he doesn't even need a blue pill.

Urban Ag said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because they're watching the thief steal things they have to pay for, and if they/all "low level retail workers" adopted the thief's behavior nobody could trust anyone, and the system would devolve into anarchy?

Is that even a thought on your mind? It's definitely the first & most prominent thing that I think of with respect to the scenario.

---

My 17 year old son has been working at Home Depot for almost a year and a half. He works the registers primarily at all three desks. If he sees someone clearly shoplifting he'll take a picture of them but that is about all they are authorized to do. They report it to time stamp it so security can look at the camera footage. There are literally cameras everywhere. From there it is reported to the cops.

Why would I want my son to get in to a physical altercation over it? I don't want him to get his jaw broken by some thug over a lifted Ryobi drill. Or end up getting sued. Not worth it. Thankfully where we live it's not common but last summer he did have a guy push a brand new commode at the door and got away with it.

I would support an ED209 to mow them down in the parking lot though.

---

Because the alternative makes you a coward.

It's no different than being one of the cowards who joins in with everyone else to film someone getting beaten up, instead of being a Man & stepping in. Consequences be damned.

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

All it takes is very basic common sense to stop the theft and looting.

But we fire employees for stopping the bad guys now, instead of stopping the bad guys.

What do you expect?

---

I saw a target employee get in front of a guy who had put something in his clothes. The employee kept telling the guy to go with him and the guy kept walking into he left the store.

Does anyone know if the employees aren't allowed by law to touch the thiefs or is it a liability issue because of insurance policies?

---

Why would you expect a person working in a low level retail job be willing to put their own safety at risk by trying to physically stop a thief? It isn't worth it.

---

Because they're watching the thief steal things they have to pay for, and if they/all "low level retail workers" adopted the thief's behavior nobody could trust anyone, and the system would devolve into anarchy?

Is that even a thought on your mind? It's definitely the first & most prominent thing that I think of with respect to the scenario.

---

My 17 year old son has been working at Home Depot for almost a year and a half. He works the registers primarily at all three desks. If he sees someone clearly shoplifting he'll take a picture of them but that is about all they are authorized to do. They report it to time stamp it so security can look at the camera footage. There are literally cameras everywhere. From there it is reported to the cops.

Why would I want my son to get in to a physical altercation over it? I don't want him to get his jaw broken by some thug over a lifted Ryobi drill. Or end up getting sued. Not worth it. Thankfully where we live it's not common but last summer he did have a guy push a brand new commode at the door and got away with it.

I would support an ED209 to mow them down in the parking lot though.

---

Because the alternative makes you a coward.

It's no different than being one of the cowards who joins in with everyone else to film someone getting beaten up, instead of being a Man & stepping in. Consequences be damned.

---

Clearly you can also differentiate between property crime and assaults can warrant different levels of involvement.

Quote:

---

Because the alternative makes you a coward.

---

You're a coward if you don't stop a potentially armed & dangerous person from stealing at your $15/hour job? That's your position?

Logos Stick said:

---

The Costco that's left there is about to see smash and grab theft in their store too now that Target is gone.

Costco, extremely liberal management, thinks they are immune. Ha ha.

---

Granted they are easy to fake, but they won't even let me in the store without showing my membership card.