Sears Security Officer Fired

[1stWatch]

Peoria, IL:
A Sears loss prevention agent was fired for pursuing a suspect and apprehending him.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/021106...GJ9Q.013.shtml

This story reminds me of how I was fired from mall security for pepper spraying a robbery suspect.
Still a job well done in my book.

[Mr. Security]

Peoria, IL:
A Sears loss prevention agent was fired for pursuing a suspect and apprehending him.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/021106...GJ9Q.013.shtml

This story reminds me of how I was fired from mall security for pepper spraying a robbery suspect.
Still a job well done in my book.

Tough lesson. I understand both positions. A written warning may have sufficed. Maybe this experience will save his life someday though. If he becomes a police officer, he will need to adhere to policy and obey his superiors. Imagine what could happen if he is told to discontinue pursuit by his sergeant and he disobeyed. He could have an accident and die, not to mention innocent people who could be hurt and/or killed.

[Bill Warnock]

Tough lesson. I understand both positions. A written warning may have sufficed. Maybe this experience will save his life someday though. If he becomes a police officer, he will need to adhere to policy and obey his superiors. Imagine what could happen if he is told to discontinue pursuit by his sergeant and he disobeyed. He could have an accident and die, not to mention innocent people who could be hurt and/or killed.

Please, please, when you have written orders and there are post limitations, follow those orders or go elsewhere for employment. I understand the notion of "greater good," but as Mr. Security pointed out, if he does become a police officer and is given an order to stop and he disregards that order, there are a lot of unintended consequences to consider.
When you are told to stay put, do it! When leadership is taken out, then and only then can you improvise.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[davis002]

Please, please, when you have written orders and there are post limitations, follow those orders or go elsewhere for employment. I understand the notion of "greater good," but as Mr. Security pointed out, if he does become a police officer and is given an order to stop and he disregards that order, there are a lot of unintended consequences to consider.
When you are told to stay put, do it! When leadership is taken out, then and only then can you improvise.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I'm going to agree with Bill on this one. If your post orders state "Do not pursue off property", then don't. To me it sounds like he chased this guy a good distance. As security, we have the resposibility to do what is in the best interest of the client. When he left the property, not only did he open up Sears to liability, but he also left Sears wide open for other shoplifters. I know we all want to send a message to shoplifters, but we can't catch everybody. He could of relayed a description to the police, and possibly supplied them with a copy of the SV video. Always do what is in the best interest of the client. The guy got off with some timberlands, which in MN would be considered simple misdemeonor theft (MS 609.52)

[N. A. Corbier]

I'm going to agree with Bill on this one. If your post orders state "Do not pursue off property", then don't. To me it sounds like he chased this guy a good distance. As security, we have the resposibility to do what is in the best interest of the client. When he left the property, not only did he open up Sears to liability, but he also left Sears wide open for other shoplifters. I know we all want to send a message to shoplifters, but we can't catch everybody. He could of relayed a description to the police, and possibly supplied them with a copy of the SV video. Always do what is in the best interest of the client. The guy got off with some timberlands, which in MN would be considered simple misdemeonor theft (MS 609.52)

Indeed. When you deviate from your post orders, you loose the only insurance against liability for doing your job you have - the protection of the client.

[S/O245]

Yeah they fire you for protecting your self and others and if the criminal hurts you or others they might and i say might lol go to jail or prison. And probably be back on the street doing more crime and or harming more people. I think they call that repeat offenders causing most of the violent crime. I.E. stop giving the gang bannger more rights than the victims and officers etc and crime will drop even more. For example below :

a violent crimianl breaks into a persons home. they use some sort of force which is allowed by the federal constititution and the criminal turns around and files suit and wins. Or I have heard im some places and countries the criminal requests charges be filled against the victim and the victim ends up in prison for defending his/her self family and friends. Thats why the crime rate are up. I have read that crime has gone down in the US. I think thats due to alot of factos in on government and its citizens. But crime could also go down more if we make sure the crook does not get more rights than his victim.

[S/O245]

as saying they use some sort of force of course i mean the victim lol not the criminal. in my last post i did not put the victim or possible victim used force which is allowed by laws.

Stay Safe All

[Lawson]

If I was the Sears AP manager, I would have fired his ass in a heartbeat for pulling a stunt like that when it was not in the post orders.

[DMS 525]

A six in one, half a dozen in the other scenario. I worked a p/t gig for a Sears for a few months, but left it when a promotion at my full time job made it difficult for me to keep the p/t job(scheduling), and I was getting rather aggravated at their ways of doing things.

Chasing someone clear off the store property, to their apartment? Not only is that pushing it, he was asking for a knife in the gut, or worse. Like chasing a mongoose down it's own hole. And for what; maybe $50 worth of merchandise? Better to let it go, and write it off.

This Sears was part of a large mall; we chased more than one out into the mall. In one case, this one idiot took a swing at me(he missed), then went running. He got as far as the pond in the mall, when he fell in the pond! Claims I pushed him in, and tried to drown him, when in fact the dumb cluck just fell in from not watching where he was going! Was just outside of the door of the store, and we caught the whole thing on camera. It was a sight, when I brought him back into the store, handcuffed and looking like a drowned rat. Even the cop got a major laugh out of that.

Another time, we bucked protocol a little, and apprehended this guy right on the floor. Anyone with half an eye could see this guy was ripping us blind. When walking him to the security office, he tried to bolt out the door to the parking lot. That resulted in him getting cracked in the shins with a baton by mall security, and then getting gang tackled & handcuffed. Jerk. It was all we could do to keep from bouncing his thick head off every wall and appliance we passed. There are those who shoplift either on a whim, or on desperation, or for a thrill, but then you have creeps like this one who make a living ripping off stores like he was. Those were the ones we sought to bust the most; like was mentioned earlier, when word gets around your store is easy pickings, you'll have a lot of trouble and a lot of losses.

Long and the short of that dumb dodo; that was his third parole violation. He went back to the penn.

But what else made matters worse at times was Sears themselves. Most of our losses were clothing. That was because they did not restrict access to what was taken into the fitting rooms. With no up close cameras to be able to count the number of items taken in, there was no way we could really keep track of how much less came out. And then every big sale, they'd always hang these big banners right in the way of our cameras. We'd tell them they'd have to be moved, and they'd fire right back by saying corporate regulations say they had to hang so much, by so much, blah blah blah. About drove us crazy. Then when losses began to take their toll, who do you think caught all the hell?

What else is aggravating is when you know they are pulling something, but the slightest break of contact, loss of line of sight, or if they managed to just ditch the merchandise they stole, it's better to let them go rather that face liability for a bad bust. Same if they drop the merchandise and run.

Although I do not know the whole story about this fella, I venture to speculate that he went too far, and that he is a little more overzealous that the kind of person Sears wants for Loss Prevention, which creates a big liability for Sears. I doubt that was the first time they had such a situation with him, and had no choice but to let him go. You have to admire the guy for his spirit and dedication, but we have to keep things in reality check, also.

[Mr. Security]

....
This Sears was part of a large mall; we chased more than one out into the mall. In one case, this one idiot took a swing at me(he missed), then went running. He got as far as the pond in the mall, when he fell in the pond! Claims I pushed him in, and tried to drown him, when in fact the dumb cluck just fell in from not watching where he was going! Was just outside of the door of the store, and we caught the whole thing on camera. It was a sight, when I brought him back into the store, handcuffed and looking like a drowned rat. Even the cop got a major laugh out of that....

Guess his accusation "didn't hold any water."

[davis002]

The Security Officer most likley has grounds to sue his former employer. just on the basis of employment does not mean you give up your citizen rights to act.

You didn't read the story (can't anymore anyways, it's a dead link)... he chased the guy off the property when he wasn't supposed to. I am willing to bet their insurance policy wouldn't have covered him if he was hurt during his pursuit of property. Did he break any laws during this pursuit? Likely not. Although, he acted against the policies and procedures of his employer, and was terminated for it.

[Chucky]

This is a I have no idea question. If a dept store has in house security in a mall that has mall security than does the dept store securities limitation end at the store entrance or mall lobby or can he pursue his perp into the parking lot?

Dead link to story so if it answers my question I was not able to read it.

[jeff194307]

As far as I know, loss prevention can persue the perp as long as needed to effect an arrest. Many times while working at the mall in the 80's, I assisted the LP guys in the parking lot.

[davis002]

As far as I know, loss prevention can persue the perp as long as needed to effect an arrest. Many times while working at the mall in the 80's, I assisted the LP guys in the parking lot.

It's not that cut and dry. Depends on the state, company policy, etc.

[SecTrainer]

We have to realize that post orders aren't just dreamed up out of thin air. When a post order limits the officer's range of allowed responses to a particular type of incident, it is usually because the client, legal counsel and representatives of the security company, perhaps even in consultation with the insurance carrier, believe that action beyond those limits would create a greater threat (a safety threat to the officer, a legal threat to the client, etc.) than the criminal act itself causes.

Bottom line: We're hired to reduce the threat to the client by our actions, not make it worse, which is what we do when we take extreme action to effect an arrest - especially in the case of a low-dollar property crime. Even clients who are the most aggressive when it comes to shoplifting know that "it's only stuff" and that there are practical and legal limits as to how far they can go to protect it. Post orders reflect those limits on security officers, who act as the agent of the client and can legally do nothing that the client himself would not be privileged to do.

The client and/or the security company once had the defense that the officer was acting outside the scope of his orders, so they shouldn't be held liable for what the officer does. However, that defense has been crumbling under other theories of negligence, such as negligent supervision and retention, and so we're likely to see even stronger enforcement of post orders in the future.