Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    Where that may be accurate it not up to a store level LPO to decide when its ok to break with policy. [. . .] No store level Lp should "ever" decide when it sok to break corporate or company policy!
    Personally, I think this is a discretion issue. The times that I would advocate ignoring missed elements and breaking policy are in extremely clear cut, common sense situations that I described previously. Cases where it'd be impossible to make a "bad stop."

    Otherwise, I would go with a "burn."

    Originally posted by panther10758
    Approach I can agree on but selection!?
    See above and the previous examples I gave.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Where that may be accurate it not up to a store level LPO to decide when its ok to break with policy. the "burn" situation is for those incidents when arrest cannot be made and still meet arrest requirements. Approach I can agree on but selection!? then there was anothe statemnt about "creative writing" in regards to reports! Yes this Op has some serious issue. Yes it was wrong of me to unintetionally lump everyone in that group. My point was (here) that its rogue actions like this OP that scar the rest of us and also force Retailers to install harsher policies that make our job tougher. No store level Lp should "ever" decide when it sok to break corporate or company policy!

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    Lpguy I can agree not everything is black and white and sometimes decisions need to be made. However if you red thread openning line reads I rarely get the six steps"
    I agree that the OP in that forum has some issues--if he's having trouble making stops with all the elements present, he's probably not paying attention. However, you took his comments to be indicative of everyone else on that forum, and I don't think that was true.

    From what I saw, some of the LPOs were talking about making stops without the "approach" element, which can often be safely ignored. Someone else, I think, also made the point that I did above--elements are not some golden standard. You were arguing this point, but really--there are times that you can safely ignore them, if you use common sense and don't act reckless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Lpguy I can agree not everything is black and white and sometimes decisions need to be made. However if you red thread openning line reads I rarely get the six steps" Keyword here is "rarely" This LP is going to cause more harm than not! He has no understanding of "burn" he is all about arrest at any cost! He intentionally ignore company policy! It is never a good idea to ignore company policy! where there might be situation that warrant a rethinking the statement that this LP "rarely" has his steps (elements) he is more a problem than a problem solver!

    Leave a comment:


  • tlangsr
    replied
    In Cali you have to see the suspect from the time they pick up the merchandise, conceal it, pass the register and get out of the exit. You can't let them out of your sight or you have no case if charges are to be brought up.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    I found this forum topic on a myspace group very disappointing. Many of the posters including Op talk of ignoring elements (steps) and even putting false or misleading info on reports. many of the persons boast of this and even name their stores! Its fools like these that give the rest of us bad names. Here is link to that topic

    http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...3D580B29401296
    I agree that it's bad policy to name your store or talk about any operational or company policy in a public forum. Shoplifters research these sites just as much as loss prevention officers do.

    I also advocate following a mixture of company policy and common sense with any approach to loss prevention. I understand that company policy in specific regards to the elements required to make a shoplift apprehension are there to form the framework for your typical shoplift scenario and to provide a good structure for the officer to rely upon.

    However, you delude yourself if you believe that these elements should be set in stone and followed in a black and white sort of manner. As with anything else, you need to use common sense. Look around at the rest of your store or company and ask yourself if other store departments do not operate in the same manner.

    I can tell you right now that your store sales managers do not follow a black/white policy in regards to customer service, because they understand that there are times in which those policies should be ignored in the best interests of the customer or company. For example: You have a valued, frequent customer who spends a lot of money in your store trying to return an item that she purchased 91 days ago. Your store policy allows returns within 90 days of purchase. Would you really expect that the company should tell the customer, "No"?

    Or your human resources department requires that all new hires have a minimum of one year sales experience prior to being hired. One of the applicants has an exceptional work history, excellent recommendations, and interviewed extremely well. However, she only has ten months of sales experience. Would you really expect that the company should turn this person down?

    Similarly, a common sense approach should also be followed in regards to theft apprehensions. We obviously follow policy (elements) in an attempt to reduce non-productive detentions ("bad stops") and to eliminate higher risks of liability to the company. However, these policies shouldn't be followed religiously when it's blatantly obvious that there is no liability risk involved, but I'm amazed that some people feel they should be.

    For example, my company sold Coach and Dooney & Bourke handbags that often retailed for between $300 and $400 each. Some of them were placed on mobile fixtures that were locked down, but it was not uncommon for thieves to attempt to use bolt cutters to remove the fixture itself and run out of the door with it to a waiting car.

    Now, there's no way in hell you can convince me that I should not make an apprehension on a subject who I see running through the store with a heavy metal fixture with $3,000 worth of handbags dangling from it--merely because I didn't have "approach" or "selection". That's just ludicrous. You may think that example is extreme, but it's not. We also sold leather coats that retailed for between $250 and $300, and thieves would attempt to scoop up an armload of them and run for the doors. Actually, anything they could grab an armload of and run with, they would.

    There are times to follow company policy, and there are times to use common sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    upsetting forum on myspace

    I found this forum topic on a myspace group very disappointing. Many of the posters including Op talk of ignoring elements (steps) and even putting false or misleading info on reports. many of the persons boast of this and even name their stores! Its fools like these that give the rest of us bad names. Here is link to that topic

    http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...3D580B29401296

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    Personally, I agree that every shoplift suspect should be patted down for weapons, even though I support a hands off policy for making apprehensions. I find it ironic that many companies look at it the opposite. They allow hands on for making apprehensions, allow their agents to use handcuffs, and then prohibit pat down searches. It makes no sense to me at all.
    There's no way I'm going to sit in an enclosed room with a known criminal, handcuffed or not, who has not been searched for weapons.

    My own safety and the safety of fellow officers is exponentially more important to me than a company's cowardly fear of a potential lawsuit that may arise from a criminal who complains about being patted down.

    Don't get me started on so-called "hands off" policies...

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    You should always be doing a full pat-down search anyways, regardless if you know where the merchandise is or not, or even if you've already located it. A pat-down search should still be conducted for weapons. In addition, you may just find contraband or more stolen merchandise as well.
    Personally, I agree that every shoplift suspect should be patted down for weapons, even though I support a hands off policy for making apprehensions. I find it ironic that many companies look at it the opposite. They allow hands on for making apprehensions, allow their agents to use handcuffs, and then prohibit pat down searches. It makes no sense to me at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo View Post
    this goes with the requirment of continuous surveillance of the suspect... if you kept this step, then you should not have to do a pat down search.
    You should always be doing a full pat-down search anyways, regardless if you know where the merchandise is or not, or even if you've already located it. A pat-down search should still be conducted for weapons. In addition, you may just find contraband or more stolen merchandise as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    This really depends on if the body of case law indicates that the offender must be given "every opportunity to pay for their items," and if they have "exhausted all opportunity to pay for said items."

    I know, in Florida, that it bounces between concealment being prima facie evidence of intent, and that it fails to meet the criteria for petit theft.

    If you stop someone under FSS 812's merchant privilege rule, and it does not codify that concealment is prima facie evidence of retail theft, then the affirmative defense is always, "I pocketed it to carry it to the front, as I did not have a cart/whatever."

    Since there is an affirmative defense at the time of detention, that makes the detention unlawful.
    Show me one statute that states "the offender must be given every opportunity to pay". I will guarantee you will not find this in any law, in any state, regarding theft or shoplifting. There is no law anywhere that requires this as an element to commit shoplifting.

    Also, an affirmative defense is a defense to create reasonable doubt. Just because someone uses an affirmative defense it does not make the detention unlawful. I have caught people who DID shoplift and tried to use an affirmative defense to explain that they were not really trying to steal the merchandise, even after they had left the store with the merchandise. They were convicted and the detention was not unlawful.

    Keep in mind, I am saying that it is NOT a good idea to stop people in the store for shoplifting. Every company that I am aware of requires exiting the store, and that is how it should be because it limits mistakes. I do not support in store apprehensions. But, based upon statutory law, a theft has been committed once there is an overt act to deprive the rightful owner of the item. In most shoplifting cases, an overt act occurs long before exiting the store. The entire reason this is important is because so many LP agents who gain limited understanding of the law think that they can stop someone in the store if they have a "concealment law" on the books in their state, but they have to wait until exit if they don't have the "concealment law". I am just saying that in all states, the law would allow for a stop in the store, but that does not make it the right decision. Company policy is what the LP agent has to worry about. They should understand the laws, but they need to follow company policy first and foremost.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    I am pretty certain that you can stop someone for shoplifting inside the store in any state. I have never heard of any law that requires exiting the building to be a requirement of theft. Some laws spell it out and consider concealment prima facie evidence of the crime, but you could still make stops in the store in every state.
    While I do not know all the laws for every state, my many years in LP showed me that courts require the suspect to exit the store in order to establish "criminal intent." Statutory laws generally only require the suspect to conceal the item and pass one POS without making an effort to pay for the item in order to be deemed as stealing whatever they have. However, case laws supercede statutory law in this manner because statutory laws fail to address the criminal intent element the way the courts want them to...also known as "legislating from the bench."

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
    Sec Trainer - "I'd be interested in the source of the sixth step"

    I'm sorry, I honestly thought you were looking for an answer to the question you asked.
    As far fetched of a concept as this is for many to grasp, courts generally set the standards by which shoplifting is to be handled and many require that the LP know exactly where the merchandise is rather than doing a pat down search... this goes with the requirment of continuous surveillance of the suspect... if you kept this step, then you should not have to do a pat down search.

    No, Sec Trainer was not interested in an answer... just another attempt to criticize everything I say... You haven't figured this out yet Security Consultant?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    This really depends on if the body of case law indicates that the offender must be given "every opportunity to pay for their items," and if they have "exhausted all opportunity to pay for said items."

    I know, in Florida, that it bounces between concealment being prima facie evidence of intent, and that it fails to meet the criteria for petit theft.

    If you stop someone under FSS 812's merchant privilege rule, and it does not codify that concealment is prima facie evidence of retail theft, then the affirmative defense is always, "I pocketed it to carry it to the front, as I did not have a cart/whatever."

    Since there is an affirmative defense at the time of detention, that makes the detention unlawful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    In Washington State, we can also apprehend a subject inside the store once they have concealed merchandise. However, to make the case as airtight as possible, we would generally wait until they exited. However, we'd make a couple of exceptions--sometimes we'd make stops right away on things such as jewelry, since it is so small and easy to dump. And if they decided to enter a restroom or some "off limits" area then we'd make the apprehension before they got inside.
    I am pretty certain that you can stop someone for shoplifting inside the store in any state. I have never heard of any law that requires exiting the building to be a requirement of theft. Some laws spell it out and consider concealment prima facie evidence of the crime, but you could still make stops in the store in every state.

    However, I would never recommend doing so (except in the rarest of cases). The concept of leaving the store, as you implied, is there to ensure you have a rock solid case. If you stop the person in the store it leaves room to create reasonable doubt as to whether the intent was to steal or not. Juries have much more room for interpretation. However, once they leave the store, it becomes much harder to say they intended to pay for the merchandise.

    Always keep in mind, what the law allows, and what is actually in the best interest of the company are not always the same thing.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X