You are right on target. The “professionals” are the people who have decided that stealing is ok or at least rationalized it to themselves. That has absolutely nothing to do with your security. It is an issue of morality in segments of society. Even with security and the rather infrequent event of detection and prosecution, your goods are more often than not, still unrecovered and the loss remains. There are tons of studies of incarcerated criminals and the one thing that is absolutely clear is that regardless of the presence of cameras, security checks, bag checks, whatever, they simply did not think they would get caught. We have been utterly ineffective at making a difference in what people think about stealing or their disposition to do it.
There are two exceptions to the ineffectiveness of security and they both go back to punishment: Dogs and armed guards. These are really the only two methods that seem to work in a measurable way that can not be credited to other factors. The reason is the *immediate and obvious likelyhood of punishment: Being attacked or shot. * Of course, armed guards and attack dogs are generally not employed for shop lifting.
While having employees on hand to stock items, serve customers and answer questions and telephones serves it’s purpose, employees as theft detterent has no measurable affect on shop lifting. For every employee that discourages a potential shop lifter (which there are no factors to suggest they actually do, although they may try to discourage them) two more are taking your merchandise out the back with the trash and leaving it in the dumpster to be picked up later.
Bag checkers, security personel and doormen are all human too and inevitably some of them too will let merchandise out your door. Using them won’t stop the problem, they just decide who gets by on their watch. The cashiers are supposed to make sure the money gets paid but still we have people walking out without paying. The cameras are there but they aren’t being watched live and they are rarely reviewed unless there is an incident. The anti theft devices at the door are unreliable and employees learn to ignore them or at anyrate, are only as effective as the people who do answer their call. The receipt checker is no more than another cashier who fails miserably at detecting lifted items, is just as likely to cheat as a cashier and is vulnerable to human nature: “Yes mam (little old lady with stolen goods in her crotch) let me get that door for you…have a nice day now.” When you consider the actual facts of stealing, the bag checker is really just a pain in the ass for your customers and a paycheck you’d be better off keeping to help cover the inevitable losses you will incur with or without them. As a matter of fact, skip the cameras, fire the cashier and the bag checker and install self checkout lines. You’ll come out ahead everytime.
Oh, I was just trying to get a better handle on more specific reasons why this particular guy might be deemed an asshole. It appears, based upon your response, that (1) skipping a bag check is ok if you have a decent reason to do so; (2) refusing to submit to a bag check in response to a merchant’s unlawful detention is ok; and (3) calling the cops in response to a merchant’s unlawful detention is ok.
So, the remaning things that may make him an asshole are:
Refusing to do the merchant an easy favor by submitting to a bag check without himself having sufficient cause to avoid the bag check;
“Playing dumb” in response to the initial confrontation with the merchant; and
Failure to take advantage of the most efficient potential resolution of the situation by waiving his legal rights as to avoid potential inconvenience to his family and upset to his little sister . . . on her birthday, even.
If you remove these three elements from this case, you get my non-asshole hypothetical customer instead of Righi.
Like I think everyone else, I’m done witrh this thread. But since I’m the one that has insisted on considering Righi an asshole, I thought I should respond. If you remove the elements you’ve listed I’d upgrade his status to schmuck. I really think the policy is reasonable, so I don’t see why it’s so important to turn it into such a big deal. Still, if he did, and wanted to turn it into a big deal, I’d even admire his resolve. As I’ve stated more than once, if he wanted to put only himself through all the inconvenience, then a lot of the good asshole support falls away.
Yes, what Rosa Parks did is certainly worthy of our admiration. Not that her act of civil disobedience has anything to do with the incident in question.
But feel free to do your imitation of a seal when the lunch bucket is in view.
A right which carries a penalty when exercised is not a properly protected right. One should be able to freely exercise rights without stigma (note that I did not say without consequence, please don’t strawman that.)
Sorry. We live in a society, not an individual islands. Our actions, even those fully legal and protected may effect others. Not realizing that, taking that into account, or caring about that, is what earns the asshole his title.
You have yet to justify your position that the guy’s an asshole. All he did was buy something and leave in an orderly manner. He politely, I say again, politely declined the store’s policy of inspection. The store, however, turned their policy into a fiasco. All the customer did was decline their unenforceable policy.
That aside, you’re treating the store policy like it means something. It means nothing. The store can institute any policy on how they wish to treat customers. It doesn’t have the force of law. It also represents half of the business/customer transaction. Customers walk in the store with their own policy of behavior. My policy as a shopper is that it’s rude to check my shopping bag. If confronted with it I would decline. I wouldn’t throw myself in front of the store and bar people from leaving until I got my way. If I did I would expect the store to call the police and I would expect the police to do something about it instead of question the store manager.
What you have is a store with a policy and a customer with a policy. One acted politely and the other acted like a prison guard from the movie Cool Hand Luke. “What we have hea’ is a failya to communicate”.
That is often the result when one doesn’t take the trouble to read what another has written. You simply can’t be serious that I haven’t justified my position. Try reading. If you claim you have, you must reread, this time with your comprehension cap on.
On the other hand, if this is a whoosh, well done. Very well done.
No woosh. Your position doesn’t make sense. His desire not to be searched was in diametric opposition to the store’s desire to search him. He was polite while the store personnel were complete jerks. They created a situation from nothing other than a desire to enforce their wishes over the customers.
In my opinion you have steadfastly accused the wrong party of being a jerk.
I urge you to reread my posts. There have been too many where I’ve been explicit as to my reasonaing to cut and paste them all. If you choose not to do this, so be it. But then don’t come back asking me to repeat, yet again, what has been explained more than once.
I’ll just add here that it is perfectly possible for the store to have acted inappropriately AND this self-important little fuckhead to have behaved in a way that qualifies him as a Hall of Fame ASSHOLE. The proof that that is possible is that that is precisely what happened. If you want more texture, reread the thread.
Apparently he can’t find his answer either because he just linked the same thread.
magellan01 can’t answer your question because it would negate his position. The best I can gather from his response(s) is as follows: The kid is an asshole because his wish not to be searched is contrary to the store’s wishes. The logic behind this would mean that the store has some manifest position that is superior to the rights and wishes of a customer.
But I could be wrong on magellan01’s position. Only he can answer your question as to what was inappropriate in the buyers response.
But this whole thread has given me an idea. Maybe one of the gaming companies can add a new magic power to their mix. They can call it “store policy” and it will trump all the other player’s powers (unless they object).
:rolleyes: I, or anyone else, can find it. It’s right in this thread, stated numerous times. I just refuse to do work for the steadfastly lazy.
:rolleyes: So, an explanation as to my opinion would negate my opinion? Uh, yeah, sure, brilliant.
:rolleyes: I did not ask for or need proof that you didn’t read the thread. But thanks.
:rolleyes: False. Anyone who has read the thread and has at least a 3rd grade reading comprehension level should be able to understand what my position is and why.
Let’s recap. This is a board self-tasked with fighting ignorance. You pay to be a member. You say you do not know my rationale. I told you it is in the many posts I contributed to this thread. You stubbornly refuse to do the minor work of reading them and availing yourself of the information you so desperately seek. Now you come in and mischaracterize my position, admittiing that it is a distinct possibility that you do so. Interesting choices on your part.
