Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

foot pursuit limited

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

  • astorms
    replied
    To chase, or not to chase....

    Once again, things here in Canada are a little different. In order to apprehend a shoplifter, they must make an attempt to leave the premises, which usually means stepping out of the store, into the parking lot (or mall) and fleeing. Whether they run or walk is a different story. If they are walking, then apprehension is simple, unless they resit. But that is a different topic.

    If they run, every retailer in Canada has a different policy. Some say observe and report, some say deter the theft in the first place, some say run 'em down.

    If the company's policy is not to chase, and the LPO chases, then they might be out of a job. If they chase, and get stabbed or hit by a car, then what good are they now?

    I believe that it is not worth a life to retrieve a pack of batteries, or even an LCD tv. The essence of loss prevention is in the prevention. Good retailers have LP programs that put staff safety, and good customer service first. I once worked for an LP firm in Toronto, Ontario, whose madate was to sneek around the store, hide behind displays, and actively hunt for shoplifters. There would be one LPO on the floor, and one in the office. While that one LPO is hunting, who knows how many other people are stealing. On the flip side, I was the LP/Inventory manager for a large electronics retailer for 4 years, who's policy was to 'customer service to death' possible shoplifters. Their theory of great floor awareness,employee buy in and excellent procedures resulted in an overall shirnkage of only -.29% in 2004 across the country.

    I'm not saying that one method works better than another. But retailers should focus more on preventing the problem before entering the store, rather than trying chase the problem out the door.

    Leave a comment:


  • Echos13
    replied
    Back in the good old days when Maas Brothers was in full swing pursuits where at the discretion of the SD. If it was going to be a long chase and there was only one assigned SD to a store the policy was to pursue only a few blocks then brake off. Leaving the store uncovered for too long was asking for trouble. Because sometimes the thefts where to pull the SD away from the store for bigger hits. Most carried radios while others use to call from pay phones to the dispatch office if the pursuit stalled or slowed down. Some chases resulted in maintaining surveillance of the subject in what was called tracking pursuits. As long as the evidence was still with the subject the chase was on. When there where stores with more than one or two SD one would use his POV and follow the chase at a distance. Granted liability was never thought about during those days. But I guess most of that would be taboo now. Some SDs ended up all the way across town. If the subject tossed or dropped the merchandise outside the store the chase was terminated. There was a law at one time I believe to where if action of concealing or hiding the merchandise inside the store deemed unusual or unnatural could allow a SD to make an apprehension before the subject left the store. I can?t for the life of me recall what the law was called. It was a long time ago in a security galaxy far, far away.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Sears LP, who I interviewed awhile back out of boredom (Its amazing when you spot the LP Chief and just chat with him...), stated that they weren't allowed to chase off the side walk. Corporate was afraid of traffic striking the suspect (lawsuit) or the LPO (Worker's Compensation).

    I think a "due regard for safety of all" policy is better than a out and out "terminate pursuit" policy. BUT, that means additional verifyable training. Why? Because you have to be able to show that you taught how to determine due reguard in pursuits.

    While politically insenstive, that was funny as hell.

    I think I heard a while back they adapted that policy after one of their LPO's got struck by a car or something like that. I agree with your synopsis of what a good policy would entail.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Sears LP, who I interviewed awhile back out of boredom (Its amazing when you spot the LP Chief and just chat with him...), stated that they weren't allowed to chase off the side walk. Corporate was afraid of traffic striking the suspect (lawsuit) or the LPO (Worker's Compensation).

    I think a "due regard for safety of all" policy is better than a out and out "terminate pursuit" policy. BUT, that means additional verifyable training. Why? Because you have to be able to show that you taught how to determine due reguard in pursuits.

    While politically insenstive, that was funny as hell.

    Leave a comment:


  • hemi444
    replied
    Originally posted by wisconsinite
    LOL..... hemi, NICE icons! is that a hatchet or a tomahawk that's being used to chase with?
    Not sure yet still trying to find out

    Leave a comment:


  • wisconsinite
    replied
    foot pursuit limited

    LOL..... hemi, NICE icons! is that a hatchet or a tomahawk that's being used to chase with?

    Leave a comment:


  • hemi444
    replied
    Originally posted by wisconsinite
    When I was doing casino Security, we were permitted by management to pursue the perp, even off property, on city streets, depending on the severity of the crime. Most of the pursuits involved purse snatchings, assault & battery, theft of house cash, chips, etc. If it was a vehicle theft/vandalism, the security mobile trucks were only permitted to follow the suspects to the property lines, and relay vehicle information and direction of travel to city PD.

    Leave a comment:


  • wisconsinite
    replied
    foot pursuit limited

    When I was doing casino Security, we were permitted by management to pursue the perp, even off property, on city streets, depending on the severity of the crime. Most of the pursuits involved purse snatchings, assault & battery, theft of house cash, chips, etc. If it was a vehicle theft/vandalism, the security mobile trucks were only permitted to follow the suspects to the property lines, and relay vehicle information and direction of travel to city PD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serpico
    replied
    Originally posted by hemi444
    When I was working LP we had a policy in place that after the shopplifter stepped foot on the parking lot pavement from the side walk we where to end the chase. Does anyone else have that type of policy in there LP depts?
    Nope. As long as they didn't run across a busy thoroughfare, we were to stay on them at all costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • hemi444
    started a topic foot pursuit limited

    foot pursuit limited

    When I was working LP we had a policy in place that after the shopplifter stepped foot on the parking lot pavement from the side walk we where to end the chase. Does anyone else have that type of policy in there LP depts?

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X