Loss Prevention Pursuits

[LPCap]

As an example, I’m familiar with the ‘chase – no chase” policies of many different companies. Meaning once the suspected shoplifter exits the front door, and decides to run to escape being apprehended; some companies allow pursuing shoplifters, many do not. There again retailers have learned that Murphy’s Law reigns. If something can go wrong – it probably will. Either the LP Agent, shoplifter, or an innocent bystander can be injured, resulting in a lawsuit against the retailer.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/category/security2lp/


Do more companies have chase policies or no chase policies? What are the pros/cons of chasing or not chasing shoplifters?

Have you ever been injured chasing or fighting a fleeing shoplifter? Has anyone else been injured during those chases?

Which policy do you prefer?

[Curtis Baillie]

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/category/security2lp/


Do more companies have chase policies or no chase policies? What are the pros/cons of chasing or not chasing shoplifters?

Have you ever been injured chasing or fighting a fleeing shoplifter? Has anyone else been injured during those chases?

Which policy do you prefer?Your link to what I wrote does not work. Here's what I wrote in its entirety.

I have battled the “us against them” mentality throughout my retail loss prevention career.
However, all I have to do is look at postings on the “Retail Loss Prevention/Retail Security” forum on SecurityInfoWatch.com and the “Shoplifting” forum at LPInformation to see the battle is still alive and well.

There has always been a divide between Loss Prevention protecting the assets of a store and the merchant’s ability to display and sell the merchandise. The secret is how well can the two partners work together to achieve a happy medium. At issue is what the Loss Prevention staff views as prohibitive policies that deter them from doing their job. Some of these policies include fitting room stops, chase, or no chase policies, the amount of force used in making shoplifter apprehensions, and under what circumstances a shoplifter is prosecuted.

Currently, there is a discussion thread going on at SecurityInfoWatch forums titled, “Security Loop Holes.” The discussion quickly turned to fitting rooms being “safe zones” for shoplifter apprehensions. Just reading the postings reveals a wide variety of opinions about the subject. The question is why potential shoplifters feel that fitting rooms as safe zones.

Fitting rooms naturally provide customers with sense of privacy, as well they should. Thieves steal because they are presented with the means, motive, and opportunity to steal. The number one deterrent to theft in retail establishments is customer service. There in lies the solution to fitting room thefts, as they are an area where customers can enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, the use of CCTV (cameras), mirrors, and peepholes to observe illegal activity cannot be used. What is very effective in reducing fitting room losses is the fulltime clerk who is assigned to provide customer service. The fitting room attendant duties should be greeting customers, attending to customers needs while in the fitting room; such as knocking on the fitting room doors to let customers know they are there to assist them, and keeping the rooms clear and free unwanted merchandise left behind.

Why LP policies are enacted – One of the posters on the “Security Loop Holes” thread wrote that they though it was unfortunate that all companies didn’t have the same apprehension policies when it came to fitting rooms. This never will happen. Companies develop LP policy and procedure based on; 1) what they think will best protect them and continue to serve what is in the best interests of their customers, and 2) litigation avoidance and cost controls. Unfortunately, the litigation avoidance part usually comes after something negative has happened and the company pays damages to a “wronged” party.

As an example, I’m familiar with the ‘chase – no chase” policies of many different companies. Meaning once the suspected shoplifter exits the front door, and decides to run to escape being apprehended; some companies allow pursuing shoplifters, many do not. There again retailers have learned that Murphy’s Law reigns. If something can go wrong – it probably will. Either the LP Agent, shoplifter, or an innocent bystander can be injured, resulting in a lawsuit against the retailer.

This blog topic, “Loss Prevention vs. the Merchant” is full of possible sub-topics. Some that come to mind are handcuffing policies, training of LP Agents, and internal theft. I’m sure we’ll explore them down the road.

[LPCap]

Thanks. It works for me though?

I am interested in the pursuit policies of companies, so I picked that section out to highlight the importance of it.

I think shoplifters need to be caught, but I am not sold on the whole hand on/off blanket policies companies impose. I know why they do it, unfortunately.

Are you a believer in "If something can go wrong – it probably will."?

[Curtis Baillie]

That's what I wrote.

[LPCap]

That's what I wrote.

Do you care to expound? Have you seen a fair amount of litigation with pursuits/hands on policies?

[Curtis Baillie]

Just "GOOGLE" and you will find the information you are looking for.

[LPCap]

wow.......

[Curtis Baillie]

Look - I would have a exchange of information on this topic with you...if I thought you were really interested in having one. So far, your postings have highlighted your desire for negative confrontation. You've seem to taken on the persona of someone you used to complain to me about.

[Lynch Mob]

Gee, I wonder who Bailey is talking about??? :confused:

LPCap, this has been my frustration for years with many of these "experts" in the LP field. They can say whatever they want and if you ever challenge them on it they will refuse to discuss and just label you a troublemaker. Clearly, Curtis does not want to get into a situation where he wants to try to explain his own words, so he is now comparing you to some "other" trouble maker who would challenge him and others on what they said.

I have always believed if you don't ahve the information and the courage to back up claims you make, then perhaps you should stop making claims of expertise.

Here is my take on the chase/pursuit policies. I think chasing and pursuing should not be allowed anywhere, and I think that only irresponsible and careless LP executives would ever allow it. I am not worried about the liability factor. I am concerned about the safety factor. There are many news stories about LP agents getting hurt or even killed engaging in a chase. There is nothing in any store that is worth the life of an individual. If one person gets killed by a practice that is unecessary, then that practice needs to be eliminated. Catching shoplifters is unecessary, let alone chasing and pursuing.

[LPCap]

Look - I would have a exchange of information on this topic with you...if I thought you were really interested in having one. So far, your postings have highlighted your desire for negative confrontation. You've seem to taken on the persona of someone you used to complain to me about.

I am very interested. We have two camps, one for pursuits and one against. I want feedback on pursuits and hands on policies.

If you are referring to souperdave, yes I have brought issues to your attention. Compare my posts to his - you won't be able to because there is no comparison. Some of his posts are ludicrous. If you are refering to Lynch Mob, I have never complained to you about him. In fact I have never discussed lynch mob (and rarely souperdave) with you for many reasons.

Being said, a google search on the issue is useless.

[LPCap]

http://www.truveo.com/Raw-WalMart-Cameras-Catch-Shoplifters-Fleeing-with/id/1688901483

Chasing shoplifters worth it? Would any of you take a ride on the hood of a car to catch people breaking the law? Do you have to do what it takes to bring the bad guy to justice in either the LP or Security field?

[liteyouup]

No. If they made it all the way to their car, they got away.

[txinvestigator]

Before I answer, I have to clarify; Are we referring to chasing people OFF of your assigned property?

[LPCap]

Chasing in general. Would you pursue someone if it meant risking your neck (and others) to put them behind bars. This can be either on or off your property.

IE: Shoplifter steals from your store in a mall. You try to stop them and they take off. You run through the mall, parking lots across a four lane road and into a neighborhood. The cops catch him. Worth it? Would you do it?

[txinvestigator]

Chasing off of the property is not only a bad idea, it brings on HUGE amounts of liability. A Security Officer's job is not to "put people behind bars", it is to protect the client's assets. Those include his employees, customers and property. Incurring a lawsuit for your client does not do much to protect him.

And who is protecting the client's property while the guard is off property chasing shoplifters? Does the client have an obligation to pay for time you (meaning you in general, not specifically) are out chasing people?

What about any injury or damage you incur or cause while out chasing folks? All of my companies have had policies against leaving your assigned property. By signing the employee manual, you have acknowledged that you have read, understand and agree to follow those policies. Chase someone off property and you will be terminated and the company will attempt to sever civil liability for your actions while off property.

I can speak first hand of an incident right here in Dallas several years ago. The guard 'followed" a shoplifter off property in his vehicle. The suspect tried to lose the guard, and ended up running a red light and broad-siding a car. The driver of that car was killed. The value of the baby formula was not worth the death of that innocent man.

It is not worth the risk.

[LPCap]

You bring up good points.

What about foot pursuits on your company property, such as a big box store parking lot?

Why is catching the shoplifter the one and only thing that many LP think about? Why do you HAVE to bring them to justice and have them arrested? I am not here to judge or argue, but am interested in thought processes. What makes you want to catch the shoplifter and put them in jail at all costs?

Interesting reading:

http://www.identityresolutiondaily.com/138/knowledge-center-jeff-stein-on-the-risky-business-of-loss-prevention/

http://www.lpinformation.com/Default.aspx?tabid=70&forumid=3&postid=13896&view=topic



Here are several more recent stories that illustrate just how violent Loss Prevention can be:

* Shoplifting Gone Bad: “The individual that was being detained yelled out to the driver, ‘shoot him, shoot him, shoot him.’”

* Dunbar man charged after shoplifting arrest: “Jones was accused then of punching his ex-girlfriend in the head and breaking a window in her vehicle, police said.”

* Suspected Shoplifter Stabs Security Guards: “Though the security officers did get one handcuff on the Magana, he continued to fight with them until the three fell to the ground in a struggle.”

* Caught on tape: Shoplifting case turns violent: Security video then seems to show a car trying to run down a security guard in the parking lot.

* Shoplifting suspect on life support: “As employees were trying to return Flores to the store, a struggle ensued. Gundlach said Flores hit the ground at some point.”

[txinvestigator]

You bring up good points.

What about foot pursuits on your company property, such as a big box store parking lot? I don't want employees chasing people over property. Too much potential for injury or worse.


Why is catching the shoplifter the one and only thing that many LP think about? Why do you HAVE to bring them to justice and have them arrested? I am not here to judge or argue, but am interested in thought processes. What makes you want to catch the shoplifter and put them in jail at all costs?

Great questions. I have found that it is usually a lack of training the LP on their true purpose and the corporate thinking in regards to this issue.

Ego also plays a HUGE role in this. "I'm letting letting him (shoplifter) get away from ME". Ego has cause many a person his/her job and worse.

I would be interested in the reasons for the desire to chase. It can help training.

[davis002]

I don't work in LP, but I wouldn't go too far when it involves only property loss. Now, if it was a kidnapper... I would chase that person to the ends of the earth.

[txinvestigator]

I don't work in LP, but I wouldn't go too far when it involves only property loss. Now, if it was a kidnapper... I would chase that person to the ends of the earth.

To include violating traffic laws and risking the public, your and the kidnapees life?

You have a cell phone?

[LPCap]

It's pretty sad when we have a plethora of LP/Security pros on this site and no one has any comments regarding pursuits.

Put your personal prejudices and opinions aside and think about the post, not the poster. The problem lies when people write off what others have to say because "LPCap" is saying it. Open your mind to new, fresh and alternative ways of doing things. The only way for security/loss prevention to gain the "rep" everyone here desires is for constructive conversations and the free flow of ideas.

Maybe pursuits are the way to go. Maybe pursuits do more good than harm. You think pursuing suspects is the way to go? Throw your thoughts/proof out there. No go on the pursuits? Prove/explain that it is a bad idea.

[N. A. Corbier]

To include violating traffic laws and risking the public, your and the kidnapees life?

You have a cell phone?

The kidnappee's life is already in great risk of death or injury. Losing sight of the victim can result in that person never being seen again.

[longgunner]

I can concur that early in ones LP career it is definitely an ego and authority trip. I know it was for me. The train of thought was 'how dare you streal from the store I work at' and 'who do you think you are', the 'respect me I am LP and you are going to jail' mentality. While I never got anyone else hurt, other than a shoplifter getting bruised up a little, I did manage to get myself hurt by getting wrapped up with a shoplifter in the door jam of a car. OOHH so young and stupid I was. That particular incident and injury cost me an invite to attend a spring training camp with the Reds and pretty much shut down my baseball career. How did all this come about you might ask? LACK OF PROPER TRAINING! I was new at the job at a small store in a bad neighborhood. I was self taught and pretty much started the LP program at this store. from scratch. Talk about hindsight training:rolleyes: I have participated in numerous foot pursuits of shoplifters. I definitely agree with staying on property(so you better be fast) but one must remain cautious and use good judgment. On a slow day with minimal foot traffic in a store common sense prevails. On a crowded day with a bunch of grandma's shopping, I don't think so. Being cautiously aggressive sends a clear message to potential shoplifters that your are serious about asset protection. But you better work for a company that thinks the same way or you are hanging yourself and your employer out to dry. Bottom line.....work FOR, work WITH and work IN a professional environment to increase your chance of success. Use common sense and good technique on apprehension cases. Sometimes a slick tongue works a lot better than a pair of handcuffs;)

[txinvestigator]

It's pretty sad when we have a plethora of LP/Security pros on this site and no one has any comments regarding pursuits.
.

What are you talking about? There have been tons of comments in this thread about pursuits.


Here is my take on the chase/pursuit policies. I think chasing and pursuing should not be allowed anywhere, and I think that only irresponsible and careless LP executives would ever allow it. I am not worried about the liability factor. I am concerned about the safety factor. There are many news stories about LP agents getting hurt or even killed engaging in a chase. There is nothing in any store that is worth the life of an individual. If one person gets killed by a practice that is unecessary, then that practice needs to be eliminated. Catching shoplifters is unecessary, let alone chasing and pursuing.


No. If they made it all the way to their car, they got away.


Chasing off of the property is not only a bad idea, it brings on HUGE amounts of liability. A Security Officer's job is not to "put people behind bars", it is to protect the client's assets. Those include his employees, customers and property. Incurring a lawsuit for your client does not do much to protect him.

And who is protecting the client's property while the guard is off property chasing shoplifters? Does the client have an obligation to pay for time you (meaning you in general, not specifically) are out chasing people?

What about any injury or damage you incur or cause while out chasing folks? All of my companies have had policies against leaving your assigned property. By signing the employee manual, you have acknowledged that you have read, understand and agree to follow those policies. Chase someone off property and you will be terminated and the company will attempt to sever civil liability for your actions while off property.

I can speak first hand of an incident right here in Dallas several years ago. The guard 'followed" a shoplifter off property in his vehicle. The suspect tried to lose the guard, and ended up running a red light and broad-siding a car. The driver of that car was killed. The value of the baby formula was not worth the death of that innocent man.

It is not worth the risk.


I don't want employees chasing people over property. Too much potential for injury or worse.

I have found that it is usually a lack of training the LP on their true purpose and the corporate thinking in regards to this issue.

Ego also plays a HUGE role in this. "I'm letting letting him (shoplifter) get away from ME". Ego has cause many a person his/her job and worse.


I don't work in LP, but I wouldn't go too far when it involves only property loss. Now, if it was a kidnapper... I would chase that person to the ends of the earth.


What are you looking for?

[LPCap]

My bad. I was referring to more "LP" guys and gals such as the ones that posted on the Target video thread. Your points were valid and appreciated.


Would you chase someone for any reason if it meant you losing your job?

[Don of the Dead]

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/quipfan/deadhorse.jpg

[LPCap]

Valid point Don, but you have to also realize that everything on this board is a rehash, remix, post with another name of the same topic. Over and over and over again. Nothing changes, it just gets renamed six months later.

Any excitement this weekend?

[Don of the Dead]

Valid point Don, but you have to also realize that everything on this board is a rehash, remix, post with another name of the same topic. Over and over and over again. Nothing changes, it just gets renamed six months later.

Any excitement this weekend?

Always Excitement Cap!
Had a guy walk out with a basket full of merch, we chased him to the bus stop, he fought and pepper spray was used to detain him. No one hurt all is well!
The other 8 or so were people who just realize they get a ticket they'll never pay and came back in willingly.

[Nauticus]

On topic again, I think it is NOT worth pursuing a shoplifter.

There's nothing in a store worth potentially worth losing your life over. And to comment on something Baille said, Murphy's Law is a huge influence on our jobs. Nobody really believes that something WILL go wrong, if it can. But the NATURE of the protective services industry is to be prepared when it does.

So, if you intend to chase a shoplifter, you should expect to be led to an alley with 10 guys with guns and knives. It may not happen, but as security/LP, you should expect the worst. Does it still seem like a good idea? In my opinion, no.

The loss prevention companies I've worked for has instead suggested that you use the surveillance equipment or your eyes to obtain a photo, or describe him well. That way, when he returns (he will), you know what he's there for, and you know he runs, so you can better prepare for it.

[LPAjh9558]

IMO, there's nothing (bag of candy, shoes, clothes, cd's etc.) worth losing your job and/or your life over! Like Nauticus said, if your intentions are to "pursue" someone, you should be prepared to take the risk that's involved and to expect something to "possibly" happen when you do.

You're risking enough as it is where you work. Plus, when you leave company property, you knowingly make both yourself & the company liable for any damages (property, bystanders etc.) or injuries that result from the pursuit. If you're looking for "excitement," you're only looking for a chance to do something and taking a bigger risk, IMO.

Shoplifters are "creatures of habit." They may not return 1 day or 1 month from when they were almost caught, but they will come back! Gather any information you can on the suspect(s), start a case file and be prepared so when they come back you'll be ready!

To a certain degree, I could understand chasing after someone (attempted kidnapping....) if the person(s) were in immediate danger and LE wasn't around. But even then, I'd still be hesitant at first....who wouldn't?

Most company policies outline who & what is allowed and to be done when theft occurs. Some people may not agree with the rules, but the rules are there to protect the company, associates, customer and even the shoplifters from potential injury and/or liability.

Yes, there are lots of LP's here and maybe not all of us know exactly what to say. But that's what makes this site great is the opportunity to meet other professionals and to be able to share our thoughts & opinions. Things may and do get repeated, but sometimes it helps to see & read things over and over!
Just my .02c:)

[valleyvista]

Gday, newbie yes, and would agree with a no pursuit policy, there are some great examples here why such as liability. I might go a little further and make a point on apprehensions, and the costs involved can often be ten to hundred times the cost of the item, therefore not in the best interest of the employer / client. They could be better served than just chasing a shoppie in development of risk managment etc

[LP_Vincent]

The company I work for has an absolute "hands off" policy. I sometimes do and don't agree with it. Out of all the apprehensions I made, most of them have been sucessful. It's all about the way you talk to the subject and how you approach them. I'm currently working on a Bachelors in Criminal Justice and have taken a two week course on Verbal Judo with Dr.George Thompson, some of you LE members may be familiar with him.

Out of all the stops I made, only about 5-10% of the shoplifters have gotten away. Usually because of the high valued merchandise.

Usually I say, just come with me it only take a few moments, we just have to do some paperwork and you can be on your way, and then another agent would call PD and say we have one in custody. :D

[Nauticus]

I'll chim in my two cents.

I've worked loss prevention at places that have a hands-off and no chase policy in effect. I've also worked at places with the complete opposite - an expectation that, if you decide to make the apprehension, you make the apprehension.

I am a supporter of allowing the LPO to chase and go 'hands-on' when making an arrest, if necessary. I believe it should always be an option. Remember, loss prevention by description has the risk of being dangerous. We all accept this when we apply for the job. The reason we are employed is to reduce shrink by ensuring that store product does not get stolen.

While I agree that, if the situation becomes too dangerous, the LPOs should back off.

I also think that the option of chasing, or going hands-on, should always exist. It should not be expected, but the option should exist.

Any LPO will agree that every single apprehension or case should be treated separately, because they're all different. From my experiences, no two stops are ever the same. So with that in mind, I believe that general policies (no chase, or hands-off) are detrimental to the overall industry, by putting rules on a situation that could turn out any number of ways.