Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikem170 | Hacker News Reader

> this was an okay response because they stole from a big company, felt it was a victimless crime.

I wonder if Walgreens thought about hiring their own security guards. It seems to make sense to pay for your own security, right? I assume insurance factors into that decision.

There are a lot of people who don't have much empathy for big companies. They would characterize them as soulless profit making machines that squeeze employees and consumers as much as they can, pollute the commons, homogenize the culture, warp politics, regulatory capture, unfair competition, inhumane, etc.

View on HN

Having Walmart hire private security is bad for both Walmart, the people they would hire and the society.

For Walmart it's obviously a cost, probably higher that the cost of goods stolen.

For the private security: they are literally risking their lives and they are probably not paid a lot. Shop owners get beaten up and sometimes killed when defending their stores.

For the society: we don't want privatized violence.

What is the security guard supposed to do when some big dude (or worse: a group) starts stealing stuff?

Get in a fight? What if they hurt the thieves? It's an assault and they could end up in jail for that.

And in SF the police doesn't bother to arrest thieves because D.A. was refusing to charge them.

So what would even be the point of e.g. detaining the thieves?

Those are all valid points, about store security guards.

Some of what you said applies if the police are doing this work, also - the costs (to society), violence (putting police in harms way to protect store items), the d.a. (and lack of jail space for thieves). Not an easy problem to fix.

And the rest of us. Because we pay more for stuff, we lose stores in some areas, and civilization in general is diminished.

Private security guards can't do much more than "observe and report". In order to have any real impact they would have to hire moonlighting police officers, and those are expensive.

Insurance is not a factor. Large retailers don't carry insurance policies for shoplifting and minor vandalism.

Security guards legally could do more than observe and report, but for understandable reasons (liability and pay, I assume) it is the policy of large stores not that do so.

Moonlighting police officers are better trained and cost a lot more money. But it still makes sense to me for the stores to spend this money, as opposed to taxpayers paying for more police in an effort to prevent and/or interdict these property crimes at these stores, something the police force was never designed to do, nor is legally obligated to do.

You've got to be kidding. How can it possibly make sense to expect retailers to pay more for security instead of having the police actually do their jobs?

If a city has descended so far into anarchy that taxpayers think that crime prevention and interdiction isn't worth spending money on then that city is ultimately doomed. The retailers are just going to leave and online purchasing will become the only option for most consumers products. The profit margins on laundry detergent and baby formula are just too low to cover a high level of private security.

I brought up in-store security because the police force is not designed to prevent property crimes in progress, which is what the top-post I replied to seemed to be talking about. There are places that do this. I agree it is far less than ideal.

I guess ultimately it's up to the voters in San Francisco and/or California to agree on how to address this? I did see that their police force may be under-sized compared to other cities. It seems they would need to agree to hire more police and court personnel, and build more jails, which would require raising taxes, or cutting some other services. There may be lots of people opposed, given the already high taxes and disagreement over related social problems and policing in general.

It's interesting how many people who do not live in San Francisco are so offended by what is happening there. It's always been a dynamic place, and still is, for better and worse.

Gas station in philadelphia made local news for hiring armed security guards; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjQ3duaBKP0

Not saying its right or wrong, but its gotten to that point there.

The state has a monopoly on violence. Walgreens has security guards, they can't do anything physical.

> Walgreens has security guards, they can't do anything physical.

I think this is store policy, not the law.

> Shoplifting is a crime as it is a form of larceny or theft. Different states may refer to shoplifting in different ways, but a shop owner who suspects someone of shoplifting may detain them until law enforcement arrives if the shop owner has reasonable proof of the crime - either the owner/manager, a loss prevention associate or another employee personally saw the individual take or conceal an item or the store has surveillance showing the taking of an item. Any detention, however, must comport with any store policies and state law. [0]

It is my understanding that they can make a citizens arrest and physically detain the shoplifter if they wanted to. Walgreens and other large companies choose not to do this.

What if a thief resists your citizen arrest and pulls out a knife or a gun?

When the fight instinct kicks in you get a very dangerous situation for both.

You don't want the security get hurt but you also don't want the security to hurt the thief.

Understood. That's probably how we got to the current situation, given that large stores don't want to have to deal with the liability of thousands of employees having to make these decisions.

We have these large anonymous cities and companies, at a scale where personal reputation has become less and less relevant. If we can't rely on enough people voluntarily following the rules do we need different rules, or different enforcement? The police are not currently obligated to stop a crime in progress. They can't be everywhere at once. Should we change that? Or maybe try to electronically enforce the rules, tracking people, cameras, etc?

I understand these thefts are upsetting to people, but how far as a society do we go? Hasn't there always been a certain amount of crime? Is there more of this kind of crime today, per-capita, than in the past, or are we just more exposed to it?

Have you considered that the police apply the same thinking?

This sounds exactly like arguments some people use when talking about current was in Europe. What if the thief pulls out nukes? you get a very dangerous situation for both. You don't want Ukrainians get hurt but you also don't want Ukrainians to hurt invading soldiers. Do you see the moral problem here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com