LogFAQs > #906263975

InfestedAdam posted...

The fellow Scout leader said they've been held at gunpoint before. With a wife and three children, I'm sure he just let the shoplifters have their way and let the insurance cover the loss. He also encourage/remind his employees to do the same to avoid any issues. It's just not worth it in my opinion to save whatever money was stolen.

...it's not shoplifting when you're being held at gunpoint, that's armed robbery.

InfestedAdam posted...

I do feel that sucks for the employee but with the potential fallout from an employee getting injured or dying, I can understand why companies prefer losing the products/money.

That or if they wind up injuring somebody else in pursuit or injure the suspect without being able to prove something was stolen.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

They can't, which is why they weren't. They were giving shoplifters the option of paying the money in lieu of going to the cops. However, now they can't do that either.

Paying extra money you mean instead of going to the cops.

No, you wouldn't get the product from what I understand. It would just be like a fine.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Policy or not, most male managers I met when I worked retail, food service, etc, did try to stop thieves.

That's because other than loss and prevention only managers are allowed to confront them.

Typically managers are the only ones who care enough and, like I said, policy specifically forbid managers from chasing thieves.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.