Wheres the real problem

[LPCap]

I'm iinterested in your thoughts...email me.

Will do, I have a few conference calls today, but as soon as I get home, I'll shoot one to you.

[Curtis Baillie]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize a few things:

#1 - there are differing viewpoints for EVERYTHING. Take religion or politics for instance - each side can "prove" everything that they spew out there -it doesn't mean that one side is "right" and the other "wrong" - but that there are differing opinions/ideas.

#2 - There is not one "right" or "wrong" way to achieve goals in LP. Lynch's way may have produced results, Curt's may have as well. SecTrainer, I am sure that in your stint as Multi Unit LPM, you achieved your goals as well. In retail, it is all about doing it the way that your peers/higher up's want it done.

EX: In my company, they place a strong emphasis on shoplift/internal cases. Now I have a choice, buck up and tell them that they are stupid and are doing it wrong (by either math formulas whatever) or I can start producing the results they want and motivating my coworkers to achieve what the company wants.

Along the same thread, a store that works for me has a few goals they have to meet. If they don't meet or exceed those goals, we will have discussions and action plans so that they CAN meet those goals. If my company wants to risk getting sued or losing money, that is their prerogative - I can either quit and start my own company like lynch and baille or work under their rules.

#3 - This is a good message board. I enjoy it like I enjoyed RetailSpy (old message board for some of you non-LP people). On the same note, I don't particularly enjoy lpinformation fair enough(which is why I came here). Let's try to steer clear of how lpi went email me-I would like to hear your thoughts and have some solid discussions with input from not only LP professionals, but security pros as well.

State your position, back it up, give examples and have healthy debate (which is what we had going on until some of this stupid bickering got started). After that, it is like Atheists and Christians getting into an argument, each side thinks they are right, they have a million and one reasons why they are right and the other people are all morons....


I hope I made my point.

I'm iinterested in your thoughts...email me.

Stores that demand numbers have little insight as to how to reduce shrink. However if that what store demands (as with LPCap) then you give them what they request they are the boss! Perhaps LPCap can show some numbers to support a different view. Personally I can.

My 1st year at my former employer they had 136 arrest for the year but shrink remained unchanged

My second year (still as LPO) we had 100 stops and shrink moved little

My 3rd year (as LPM) We had less than 50 stops but shrink dropped by over a full % to 2%.

Prevention methods I put in place were inexpensive and in some cases they no cosxt at all to store. Prevention takes less time it reduces shrink faster and is safer for all parties concerned. Now having said that I am not againist arrest in fact I support a 100% prosection policy. I do feel that arrest is your last step after prevention fails!

[SecTrainer]

State your position, back it up, give examples and have healthy debate (which is what we had going on until some of this stupid bickering got started). After that, it is like Atheists and Christians getting into an argument, each side thinks they are right, they have a million and one reasons why they are right and the other people are all morons....

Well stated - thank you for your comments.

[LPCap]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize a few things:

#1 - there are differing viewpoints for EVERYTHING. Take religion or politics for instance - each side can "prove" everything that they spew out there -it doesn't mean that one side is "right" and the other "wrong" - but that there are differing opinions/ideas.

#2 - There is not one "right" or "wrong" way to achieve goals in LP. Lynch's way may have produced results, Curt's may have as well. SecTrainer, I am sure that in your stint as Multi Unit LPM, you achieved your goals as well. In retail, it is all about doing it the way that your peers/higher up's want it done.

EX: In my company, they place a strong emphasis on shoplift/internal cases. Now I have a choice, buck up and tell them that they are stupid and are doing it wrong (by either math formulas whatever) or I can start producing the results they want and motivating my coworkers to achieve what the company wants.

Along the same thread, a store that works for me has a few goals they have to meet. If they don't meet or exceed those goals, we will have discussions and action plans so that they CAN meet those goals. If my company wants to risk getting sued or losing money, that is their prerogative - I can either quit and start my own company like lynch and baille or work under their rules.

#3 - This is a good message board. I enjoy it like I enjoyed RetailSpy (old message board for some of you non-LP people). On the same note, I don't particularly enjoy lpinformation (which is why I came here). Let's try to steer clear of how lpi went and have some solid discussions with input from not only LP professionals, but security pros as well.

State your position, back it up, give examples and have healthy debate (which is what we had going on until some of this stupid bickering got started). After that, it is like Atheists and Christians getting into an argument, each side thinks they are right, they have a million and one reasons why they are right and the other people are all morons....


I hope I made my point.

[Curtis Baillie]

There you go again, ignoring facts and placing your personal emotions ahead of reason. Just read the threads here and it is plain who is the person who started the insulting and who did much more insulting. Your bias is showing big time Mr. Bailie.

I just came on to engage in conversation and the next thing I know is I have SecTrainer, who has admittedly no expertise in Loss Prevention, telling me over and over again how horrible I must be at my job. If you want an MO, that is it. I debate logically, and when others get backed into a logical corner, they come out throwing blows. When I push back, I am the bad guy. Then I have old timers who have set up this mess in the Loss Prevention world in the first place telling me that I am the trouble maker. Of course, history is littered with figures who went against the grain of the status quo and were labled "trouble makers". I should not be surprised when closed minded people get upset when someone comes along and challenges opinions they have always held as true. I should also not be surprised when the mob mentality kicks in and several people start piling on and pointing fingers at the guy who is doing the challenging.

How about this Curtis, how about telling SecTrainer that he was out of line when he started insulting me and my professional skills? How about chastising the instigator for a change? I admitted that I was wrong and made a mistake by directing comments towards you that were unfounded. How about you do the same and admit you made a mistake about who started the mudslinging and what the real "MO" is here?

I guess I should be touched regarding how much attention you pay to me. You know that I was on the Yahoo site. You know that I advertise on My LP Space. You know that I visited your website. Should I be worried that I actually have a stalker????

I'm a registered member on that Yahoo site and was subjected to your tyrannical rants there. You told me you advertise on My LP Space. When you visited my website you left your imprint. Get over yourself.

[SecTrainer]

Just for the record, LM, I acquired considerable LP experience, and said (only in part, however) how I attained that. Do I consider myself an "expert"? Nope, because that's not a title that is appropriate for people to award to themselves. I know what I know, but there's undoubtedly a lot I don't know. I'm quite happy to let other readers decide which of us is the more "expert" regarding the principles of running an LP program. Or they might just say that neither one of us knows sheets from Shinola about the subject.

It doesn't matter anyway, because it doesn't take an "LP expert" to see the flaws in the ideas you've presented on the topic. They're visible even to a child of seven...possibly six.

Perhaps what you're thinking of is that I said I had no LP expertise when I left law enforcement - and neither do most cops. Most cops - the honest ones anyway - will tell you the same thing. Cops aren't trained in the field. However, I recognized (without the slightest damage to my ego) that I knew very little on the subject and made sure I corrected that deficiency. I recommend you do the same - and be quick about it. People are out there swiping your stuff, Mr. LP Man!

Now....since you're starting to rub my one raw nerve, along with the nerves of most everyone else on this board, I'll regretfully have to add you to my "Marchetti List". It's an exclusive group - just you and Marchetti, in fact.

[Bill Warnock]

I am going to break my own promise.
Lynch Mob, please do not take David Marchetti's place. Keep it civil or please just go away. There are just too many heavy hitters here for childish behavior.
Enjoy the day,
Warnock

[Lynch Mob]

This is your MO. You show up on sites and insult people who do not agree with you. Just as you recently did on a Yahoo site. You're running out of places to go.

There you go again, ignoring facts and placing your personal emotions ahead of reason. Just read the threads here and it is plain who is the person who started the insulting and who did much more insulting. Your bias is showing big time Mr. Bailie.

I just came on to engage in conversation and the next thing I know is I have SecTrainer, who has admittedly no expertise in Loss Prevention, telling me over and over again how horrible I must be at my job. If you want an MO, that is it. I debate logically, and when others get backed into a logical corner, they come out throwing blows. When I push back, I am the bad guy. Then I have old timers who have set up this mess in the Loss Prevention world in the first place telling me that I am the trouble maker. Of course, history is littered with figures who went against the grain of the status quo and were labled "trouble makers". I should not be surprised when closed minded people get upset when someone comes along and challenges opinions they have always held as true. I should also not be surprised when the mob mentality kicks in and several people start piling on and pointing fingers at the guy who is doing the challenging.

How about this Curtis, how about telling SecTrainer that he was out of line when he started insulting me and my professional skills? How about chastising the instigator for a change? I admitted that I was wrong and made a mistake by directing comments towards you that were unfounded. How about you do the same and admit you made a mistake about who started the mudslinging and what the real "MO" is here?

I guess I should be touched regarding how much attention you pay to me. You know that I was on the Yahoo site. You know that I advertise on My LP Space. You know that I visited your website. Should I be worried that I actually have a stalker????

[Curtis Baillie]

For the record, before I ever uttered a word directed at SecTrainer, who I admittedly mistook for you, he peppered me with insults. He called my ideas "ludicrous", he said that my ideas were not smart and had no place in LP, and he said I should not be working in LP at all if I held the beliefs I had. Now, I don't know about you, but to me those are extremely insulting and damning words. He fired the first shots.

So, to question an individual about his credentials who clearly has no understanding about Loss Prevention or Criminal Justice after being subjected to repeated insults from him is not unusual or out of bounds. And to say that I "don't believe" him, is not the same as calling him a liar. Perhaps, I could have made it more clear by saying something along the lines of "I can hardly believe you were a Chief of Police with such a naive and simplistic view of criminal justice and Loss Prevention strategies." Would that have still led you to critique me for calling him a "liar"?

Look Curtis, this is not new for us of course. You always chose to ignore the fact that I never fired insults at other first, but you always conveniently ignored when others did the insulting. Sure, you may not like me or how I choose to present myself, but at least be honest enough to admit that I did not call anyone a liar and I was subjected to insults first.

So, why not save your condemnation speeches for those who really deserve it.

This is your MO. You show up on sites and insult people who do not agree with you. Just as you recently did on a Yahoo site. You're running out of places to go.

[SecTrainer]

Lynch, talking with you is like rowing a flat-bottom boat over an ocean of marbles. People like you show up on the forum from time to time, and the result is always the same - nada.

Regrettably, when I look in the mirror I'm forced to concede that I no longer have all the time in the world to waste on mindless conversational circle jerks, so I hope you'll excuse me from this delightful little get-together. I've gotta dash back to the real world before I forget where I left it.

It's been real, and it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun.

[Lynch Mob]

1. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what you believe. I'm only one of many police administrators who took positions with a number of retail chains, and they usually did so at middle management levels because of their management experience - not because of any expertise in loss prevention because we didn't have any! And this is my whole point. You have no expertise in Loss Prevention, yet you feel you have enough to condemn an entire Loss Prevention strategy that is shared by many major retailers in this country. With a wave of the hand you dismissed any knowledge or expertise I, or other Loss Prevention professionals, may have developed in this field even though you admit you have almost no experience in the field, no expertise in the field, and are not currently even working in the field. Forgive me for finding that incredibly arrogant and egotistical on your part.

2. "Addition and subtraction" are half-baked when you're adding and subtracting the wrong things. You can be just as wrong in doing simple math as when doing advanced calculus if you don't know what you're doing, as in your case. For instance, you didn't even realize that the risk of loss from a bad stop is spread over all the stops made in the period by the LP department, not just the "cheap" ones, and so your equation was never right in the first place. My equation was absolutely correct because I clearly showed how one bad stop based upon dealing with a high risk category in a single store in a year would cost more to the company than all the shoplifting stops made for a high risk category in the store in the same year. I was evaluating risk vs. reward for that area. Other shoplifting shops do not enter the equation at this point because we were looking at a specific category. If you want me to break down how useless shoplifting apprehensions are on the whole, I can do that as well, but for that I look at different numbers. The math is just as simple.

3. Was there something I said about the broken windows theory that betrayed a lack of understanding? If so, I'd be very grateful if you'd enlighten me. I already enlightened you, but I will again. Broken windows is a strategy of CRIME PREVENTION, not about apprehensions. In the broken windows concept, police deal with minor issues WITHOUT MAKING MORE ARRESTS. The idea is to create an environment of INCONVENIENCE for the residents of a community so they take action on correcting those small, minor issues, such as repairing a broken window, so the environment does not foster major criminal activity. This equates perfectly to what I am saying about small items. You DETER the theft, not ignore it. You use other strategies, primarily customer service, to prevent the theft rather than arresting people. This creates the same type of INCONVENIENCE for the shoplifter as the police make for residents. As a result, the shoplifters choose to go somewhere else, just like with the broken windows concept. Your idea of apprehending jewelry thieves is contrary to the broken windows concept you proclaim as the best strategy. That is in line with the old thinking in New York when they spent more time arresting people they CAUGHT breaking the law rather than focusing on PREVENTION. Are you enlightened now?

Incidentally, something further you might learn from the theory is that the police - for somewhat different reasons - had been making exactly the kind of calculation you advocate...that going after "small things" wasn't "worth it". Indeed, that was the widely-accepted gospel in policing. Go after the big stuff...you don't have resources to tackle the little stuff! Turns out that this thinking was wrong, and so are you. No, you are the wrong one here. Broken windows helped prevent crimes, yet still keep police officers ready and available to address bigger crimes. Instead of spending time arresting and booking petty vandals, they basically harrassed them leaving more resources available to fight bigger criminal problems. The problem is you are just confused about what broken windows was all about.

4. Please don't be deliberately concrete with respect to my very obvious tongue-in-cheek "shoplifting preferences", which were made to use humor to emphasize a point - although you're obviously not a very humorous guy. Anyway, replying to them as if they were made seriously just makes you look incredibly stupid, which I'm sure you're not. I think you understood those comments perfectly, but if not I'll try to adapt my posts to you and use a more juvenile style of writing than I would use in posting to literally any other member of the board. And, if you're a slow reader, I'll even write slower. I think everyone else "got" my comments as they were intended. Am I right, everybody? Ever hear of handwriting analysis? If you were a Chief of Police then you should have. Go read up on it and tell me what it says about people "making jokes" in their writings.

See, the funny part of all this is how you cite broken windows as an effective strategy in crime prevention and then support the exact opposite view on how to address it with shoplifters. You say that not apprehending shoplifters would be akin to allowing criminals to run free, yet support a strategy that essentially decriminalized lesser crimes and allowed officers to deal with them as nuisance issues rather than criminal offenses. Homeless were no longer arrested as they once were. They were essentially harrassed until they left. Failing to arrest for crimes committed was beneficial to the success of the program, not a cause of failure, as you are pointing out about not arresting shoplifters.

You liked the quote about addressing the problem at the root. How exactly is catching a shoplifter after they have stolen addressing the problem at the root? That is as far at the top as you can get. The root is much deeper. The root comes from an environment where a subject feels that they have the opportunity to steal due to a lack of deterrence. You catch a shoplifter outside the store, 100 yards away from the jewelry counter and you do not add any deterrent factor to additional thefts. You add customer service to the jewelry counter and you start deterring multiple shoplift attempts, as well as creating an environment that teaches potential shoplifters that it is not a good environment to attempt to steal. Now, you are getting closer to the root. To get to the actual root, you have to look at why there is not customer service at the location. Where are the employees? What have they been trained to do? What impact does the manager have on providing coverage and service to the high shrink area? Why can't the manager motivate employees to act in the fashion they are expected to act? You can go on and on, but now you are looking at the root problem. Catching the shoplifter after they have attempted to steal is far, far away from the root of the problem.

Sorry, but I find your backwards logic quite amusing. I will give you credit though, your writing skills are quite good and you are actually able to put together clear thoughts. Most folks I debate with can hardly put together two sentences without at least 20 spelling or grammatical errors.

[SecTrainer]

SecTrainer, what kind of security work do you do?

I do training and security program development for several proprietary (noncontract) security forces in my area. I sometimes also do sensitive internal investigations and executive background investigations for these companies.

I'm also involved with several others in a training initiative for security officers, supervisors and command personnel. It's been very gratifying to see many more training programs of all kinds becoming available for security personnel. And, the future looks very bright in this regard. Training is finally beginning to take hold in our industry despite a number of forces that seem determined to prevent or limit training and others who are simply indifferent to the need for training. (Dennis Dalton has an interesting discussion about this in his book Rethinking Corporate Security In the Post-9/11 Era).

However, more certainly can and should be done in this area to provide affordable avenues for advancement for line officers, and to promote professionalism at all levels of the industry. We can't have too many training resources! The more the better.

[Lynch Mob]

Lynch Mob - This didn't take long. You posted your "hello" on 3/2 and you're already reduced to calling a member of this board a liar. I thought it would take longer than it did.

For the record, before I ever uttered a word directed at SecTrainer, who I admittedly mistook for you, he peppered me with insults. He called my ideas "ludicrous", he said that my ideas were not smart and had no place in LP, and he said I should not be working in LP at all if I held the beliefs I had. Now, I don't know about you, but to me those are extremely insulting and damning words. He fired the first shots.

So, to question an individual about his credentials who clearly has no understanding about Loss Prevention or Criminal Justice after being subjected to repeated insults from him is not unusual or out of bounds. And to say that I "don't believe" him, is not the same as calling him a liar. Perhaps, I could have made it more clear by saying something along the lines of "I can hardly believe you were a Chief of Police with such a naive and simplistic view of criminal justice and Loss Prevention strategies." Would that have still led you to critique me for calling him a "liar"?

Look Curtis, this is not new for us of course. You always chose to ignore the fact that I never fired insults at other first, but you always conveniently ignored when others did the insulting. Sure, you may not like me or how I choose to present myself, but at least be honest enough to admit that I did not call anyone a liar and I was subjected to insults first.

So, why not save your condemnation speeches for those who really deserve it.

[LPCap]

Lynch, not everyone on the site is a wanna be cop. A lot of people here are in different aspects other than uniformed security work.

I am not a security officer/guard or wanna be cop. I work LP (multi unit) and I get aggravated at people who "demean" and put down security officers/guards by calling them wanna be. Entry level security is the same as entry level LP and I think we can all do without the "wanna be" talk.


SecTrainer, what kind of security work do you do?