Security and Fence: A Retail Perspective

Click here to get more!

At a high-risk retail location such as the one I have been working at these past three years there comes a time when you are asked to be both a security guard for the products you sell and fence for the thieves that steal them.

All-day long you are on the lookout for those that might be trying to shoplift. It's usually pretty obvious and the company expects us to thwart these no-goodnicks by simply offering them amazing customer service which is actually just direct, unwavering observation, assistance, and silent harassment. While you are attempting to thwart injustice you get called away to help a real customer and without constant observation, the thief strikes and soon, you watch them walk out and half the time they set off the buzzers at the front of the store. It's too late and they've struck again and everyone looks at each other as if we've lost another one. We have failed in our half-assed attempts to thwart the criminal from stealing the master's property. 

Secretly, but not that secretly, the masters don't really expect you stop most of the attempts. They expect the store to reach a certain amount of predictable loss (shrink) and it's more important to sell something and make money than to worry about petty theft. Even not-so-petty theft is acceptable as long as it isn't perpetrated by the employees. 

It gets so that when a man walks out with $400 worth of electronics or an entire $1000 laptop it's just the cost of doing business. The police may or may not be notified. I just hope they never pull a gun and go for the cash. Sometimes there is a ton of cash. But they know that it's a major crime to rob someone and they also know that shoplifting is such a minor offense that most folks won't try to stop them. And if you try to stop them with force you can get fired so you just have to watch them walk out with someone else's property. You think that it's your job to stop them and to protect your own job security and to protect the companies interest and if you care about the store you work in, the other people that you work with and adhere to general community ethics then you feel like it is the same as stealing from you. It could easily be you anyway.

Then, just after watching one leave another one enters. This one you haven't seen before but they certainly look the part. They look shady as fuck and walk straight to the return line and hand the cashier a bunch of random shit that was obviously stolen. Sometimes they come up with some excuse like their grandma bought the products a few weeks ago and now she just doesn't need $250 worth of Epson ink that just happens to be sitting on the shelf nearby unprotected. Your grandma spent over $200 dollars on ink she didn't need? Or the one with ten random day-planners that no one has ever purchased in those numbers before and happens to be the most expensive options when they don't look like they've spent more than $10 on their clothing, backpack, oversized coat, and two huge handbags. 

There is a rule that managers can refuse a return but managers aren't the ones at the registers most of the time. The ones at the register are typically younger, less experienced and barely trained. They don't understand the policy and since they are intimidated by both customers and managers they can't make complicated decisions about which policies to hold more strictly and which ones to break completely. They don't know how to professionally refuse the obviously douchey person trying to get money from nothing and some management teams might say to just do the return and some might say to use their best judgment.

The return policy also requires a receipt for a return except that telling someone that legitimately bought $100 purse just a day earlier that you won't give them a refund because they don't have a receipt is near suicide as they will either tell a higher-up that you were rude or they will just continue to argue with you until you just give up or they will say your racist or sexist or some other crazy shit. Dealing with an angry customer is no fun and to be avoided at all costs, for the most part. Having enough experience to understand when a customer crosses the line and demanding that they leave or you'll call the cops takes time to develop and the brand new cashier will just take the abuse most of the time until a manager steps in. 

Ultimately the policies should be straightforward. They should be easy for the customer and for the cashier. It shouldn't be a guessing game or a complicated algorithm of whether or not the customer deserves a break this time either because they are super nice or obnoxiously demanding. Managers should be able to make decisions about who is not a real customer and security should either be a priority or not. It feels like a priority but it really isn't. 

The contradiction occurs when someone thinks that the company wants to enforce laws. Companies, especially the largest companies, would rather the government never gets involved. Only when the problem becomes too costly do they resort to the police. This is due to two factors, as I see it. One is that companies and governments don't always mix well. Government's tax companies and inflict regulations that can make it difficult to do what the company wants and challenge what might make them more money. 

The second reason is that people know that the government and especially the street cops are not going to stop petty crime. They probably won't even show up. They don't have time and the cost is not worth it. It is technically a crime but so is loitering, littering and public indecency. The "man" doesn't have the men to enforce all the laws. Companies have security systems but those are not usually reactive and some companies have a security guard and if it is really important they will have more guards and real guns but balancing the cost a human guard and the liability involved is complicated. It isn't usually worth the fight when it comes to petty theft. 

When you work in an area that has extreme poverty and crime is rampant, especially petty crimes you see the stark difference between those vagrants and the majority of folks that are decent enough not to steal from you or show up too drunk and don't do hard drugs in the bathroom. These are the people to give great customer service and should be the real focus of the team but it is very distracting to have to judge all that come into the store in an effort to work as a deterrent to the baddies.  

It is demoralizing and confusing to be expected to be both the security guard and the fence. To watch people walk out with product just to have them or someone that looks like them bring it back and put it on the counter and lie to you makes you feel the opposite of empowered. They say that they bought the product but you know they didn't and you were always taught that lying and stealing are bad and that heroes stop criminals and the right thing to do is to expose liars. Well, too bad. Just ask them for their ID and don't cause a ruckus and the corporate masters will deal with it in their way. Just go back to selling and signing people up for harassment emails and giving people undeserved discounts because they say the word "coupon" in some configuration that passes as a sentence and trying to explain how shit works to people who don't give a shit about how it works, they just want it to work.

Working with the general public can be a frustrating mess and most people do not understand the hardships that the lowly floor staff deal with on a daily basis. The main goal of a business is to make a profit and in that pursuit, they need to maintain a positive reputation. This means erring on the side of the customer and not doing things that lead to negative press or legal action. This means that associates take on the complicated task of representing a companies interest even if the ones who make the rules never know who those associates are.  

30 Days of Fiction: 22

"Can you tell me what happened on the night of July 5th, Mr. Meeks," a lawyer named Jim asked a very sweaty man named Walter Meeks who sat in the witness seat looking up into the rafters. Walter was now staring off into space and looking nervous with the audience's gaze bearing down on him like a dozen firehoses trying to put out a raging fire.

"Mr. Meeks," the kind looking judge leaned toward Walter and calmly yet authoritatively asked, "Mr. Meeks, can you please tell us what happened on July 5th? Tell us about what occurred at your house that led us all to be here."

With that, Walter perked up, focused on the lawyer who had asked the original question and began, "I'm sorry. I haven't slept in a few days. It's actually fairly straightforward now that I have had some time to think about it. I was attacked by three armed men who broke into my house intent on doing my family harm. They were not there to simply steal our things. I know this because they must have seen our cars outside and most likely had cased my house to get to know what we had, who we were and when we would be there or not."

Walter paused for a moment to look around at the audience whose attention was wrapped.

He continued, "I was asleep in bed with my wife, our 9-year-old son Erik was in the room next door when I woke up and heard someone in the house. I woke my wife up, who wanted to get our son but it sounded like they were already in the house and would have heard if we went for him then. I got my Glock 17 out of my safe and told her to go into the bathroom and call 911. I had to get my son, so I slowly opened the door to the hall and could see that Erik's door was still shut. I looked through the crack in the door and could see a man in a mask with a pistol in one hand coming up the stairs. I knew I had no choice. I opened the door, leaned out on my side and shot him three times in the chest."

Walter's head bowed as he talked about killing the first robber, visibly shaken by recounting the night.

"What happened next," Jim asked when Walter had remained silent for too many moments.

"It was so loud," Mr. Meeks said looking back at the lawyer and the audience. He continued, "I got up and rushed into Erik's room but he wasn't in there. I panicked and started calling his name softly. 'Erik, Erik' I called and then he came out from under the bed and I grabbed him. 'It was so loud' he said as I started for the door. I went to open the door but as I did they started shooting at the door. I jumped back and had Erik hide under the bed again. I lay on my back with my gun trained on the door ready to shoot but they didn't come. Instead, I heard them rush into my bedroom, where my wife was. I got up immediately and rushed after them. I opened the door and saw two men but then I heard shots. At least 4 of 5 loud bangs and I saw my wife holding her Glock 19 and one of the men goes down. The second one is in front of me so I put my gun up to the back of his head and fire one shot."

Walter goes back to staring at the rafters, this time slightly rocking back and forth.

"What happened after that," the judge interjected the silent fog filling the room.

Mr. Meeks slowly turned his head and looked down at the floor before saying, "My wife and I got our son, put our guns on the bed, went downstairs and waited for the police."

"Is that everything Mr. Meeks," asked the judge.

"Yes," Mr. Meeks said softly without looking up.

"Alright, with that we will take a short recess and the prosecution will begin their cross-examination in 1 hour," the judge said before hitting his gavel.

One hour later the judge was sitting behind his bench, the lawyers were behind their desks, Walter Meeks was in the witness chair, and the audience started filing in the room. After a few moments of murmurs and shuffling the gavel struck again.

"Alright, the prosecution will now cross-examine the witness," the judge said as the state's prosecuting attorney slowly made their way up to the witness.

Walter sat in his chair, this time focused on the attorney as they meandered around the room, stopped at the juror box for a moment and then finally came up to him.

"How long have you owned a gun, Mr. Meeks," the attorney asked.

"Objection, relevance," Walter's lawyer said calmly.

"I just started your honor, I have to start somewhere," the attorney pleaded with the judge.

"Overruled, answer the question please," the judge said.

"I've been shooting most of my life, my dad taught us how to shoot, " Walter began but was cut off.

"Answer the question, how long have you owned the gun that you used to shoot two men. One, in the back of the head," the attorney said with disdain.

"Two years," Mr. Meeks replied looking up at the ceiling.

"And where did you buy that gun," the attorney asked.

"Objection, relevance," Walter's attorney said without looking up.

"I'm getting there, your honor," the attorney explained.

"Overruled," the judge said looking at Mr. Meeks.

"I bought it from a friend," Walter replied.

"Why did you buy it from a friend and not at a store," the attorney asked.

"Objection, why does it matter how my client acquired the gun he used to defend his family," Walter's lawyer said, now fully annoyed.

"What is the point of this, Ben," the judge asked the attorney.

"It goes to the defendant's mental state during the incident and his violent nature," the attorney answered confidently.

"Permission to approach the bench," Walter's lawyer asked already rising out of his chair.

The judge gestured the two suit-wearing men to him and they began to talk for a moment. Walter stared at the ceiling while they talked and when they finished the lawyer sat back down and Ben walked back over to the witness.

"Have you ever been committed to a psychiatric ward," Ben asked.

Mr. Meeks slowly brought his gaze back down to earth, looked up at the judge pleadingly, but when he saw no reprieve, he answered, "yes."

"How many times, Mr. Meeks," the attorney asked while pacing around the room.

"Three, times," Walter answered.

"Can you tell us about when and why you were taken to a psychiatric ward three times, Mr. Meeks," Ben asked as he stopped at the jury box to rest and look over the jury.

"Once when I was 14, once when I was 17 and once when I was 23," Walter said and then paused before continuing, "The first time I got into a fight with another boy at school. The second time I jumped out of a moving vehicle, and the last time I was..." he couldn't finish the sentence and looked down.

"Please continue, Mr. Meeks, what happened when you were 23," the judge asked with a soft tone.

"I, uh," he stuttered, "I was manic and went walking around the city at night with a 22 rifle. I guess I shot it off a few times, and then I was taken into custody."

"You aren't allowed to own a gun are you," the attorney asked, but before Mr. Meeks could answer he said, "and when you were 14, that fight you were in, you bit the other boy's finger off, didn't you?"

"Objection, badgering," Walter's lawyer interjected.

"Sustained," the judge said.

"I'll rephrase the question," the attorney replied and with a smile asked, "Are you allowed to own a gun in this state, Mr. Meeks?"

"No," Walter answered softly.

"And you take medication for manic depression, bi-polar, and schizophrenia, is that correct," Ben asked.

Walter looked over at his lawyer who nodded for him to answer.

"Yes," Walter replied.

The attorney leaned up against the witness stand and leaned over to ask, "And you enjoyed shooting that man in the back of the head and watching his brains splatter all over the wall, didn't you?"

"Objection," Walter's lawyer exclaimed and stood up astounded at the attorney's tactics.

"Sustained," the judge said and added, "Do not answer that Mr. Meeks. That was highly unprofessional and if it happens again you will be done here."

Walter was staring at the ceiling and rocking back and forth dramatically now as the judge banged his gavel to silence the uproar in the audience. A few moments past before the judge announced to the court that they would have another 30-minute recess where he would tell the jury how to deal with the most recent information and speak with the lawyers in his chambers.

45 minutes later the courtroom was filled and the gavel struck again marking the beginning of the next set of arguments.

"Does the prosecution have anything more," the judged asked.

"Not at this time, the witness is yours," Ben replied.

"Do you wish to redirect," the judge asked looking at Walter's lawyer.

"Yes, I do your honor," he said before standing up and walking over the Walter who was not looking at the ground or ceiling at the moment but directly forward. He asked, "do you feel that you did everything a reasonable person would do in the situation you were in?"

"Absolutely, I had no choice," Walter said confidently.

"And do you feel that your mental state was clear and focused during the events that night," the lawyer asked.

"Yes, sir. I take my meds, and they work for me. I don't know what else I can say," he said with tears starting to come down his face.

"Thank you, Walter," the lawyer said before adding, "No further questions, your honor."

"You may take a seat next to your lawyer Walter," the judge said gesturing for Walter to leave the witness stand.

After a moment he continued, "The prosecution will now make their closing statements, followed by the defense."

Ben stood up swiftly and strolled toward the jury to begin his monologue, "I am not here to tell you that Mr. Meeks is an evil man. Or that he shouldn't have defended himself. What a horrible situation he was in. But he admits that he illegally obtained a firearm and he has a history of violence. He has an unstable mind and engaged in a level of violence that goes beyond self-defense. His wife owned a gun legally so why did he need one? Because he wanted to use it! He pushed the barrel into the back of a man's head and pulled the trigger. Could you do that? I know I couldn't, and we can not afford to have a man like that out on our streets. Who knows if his medication will continue to work? And what he is capable of when they stop working?" He finished his speech pointing at Mr. Meeks and then sat back down at his desk.

"The defense will make it's closing statements," the judge explained.

Walter's lawyer shuffled some papers before standing up. He too strolled over to the jury and said, "This man was put into the worst possible situation anyone could ever deal with. Three armed men, in masks, broke into his house intent on who knows what kind of horrific acts, and he defended himself and his family. It's that simple. The prosecution wants to make him out to be a danger to society but from what I see he is exactly the kind of person I would want living next door. Someone who admits their faults; learns from them and acts heroically in the face of overwhelming terror. The prosecution wants you to be distracted by irrelevant details about his past, and the gun he used. He wasn't supposed to have a gun but thank God he did because his child and wife are alive because of it. So, when you go into that room to deliberate just ask yourselves one question, 'What would I do to save the ones I love?"

Walter's lawyer concluded his speech and sat back down. The judge told the bailiff to take the jury to deliberate and as the last of the jurors left the room silence fell on the court. 

More than Justice

Why are we not satisfied with the prosecution of a mass shooter or terrorist? 

Maybe it is due to the mysterious nature of these crimes that we crave additional action. They come out of nowhere and strike the innocent with violence that shocks and infuriates. These acts remind us that we are not in total control over the environment and that the barbarism of our past has not been lost to modernity. While violence in the world is going down we still find ourselves subject to nature's wrath but when it is by human hands we seek explanation and prevention. 

But how can you prevent psychopathy, sadism and violent ideology? Many want to take away the tools of such violence but this does not seem to satisfy the masses. Maybe it is because deep down we know that no matter the restrictions people are clever enough to circumvent them. Maybe, deep down we know that no matter what we do we won't be able to stop these kinds of acts of violence. We distract ourselves with ideas of prevention because we don't want to admit the terrible truth that what creates these kinds of people is a combination of biological predispositions and environmentally mediated influences. To regulate is reactionary and by the time the terrorist kills or the active shooter shoots it is too late. We have to go deeper, to the life of these people, not just their last acts. 

All the mechanisms that could prevent these acts are in the communities, families and cultural values that the people that commit them have experienced. Why do we not blame those that encouraged the violence? Why don't we blame the family that ignored their child or abused their child, creating in them a resentment and hatred of others? Why don't we blame the religious leaders and apologists for not disavowing all that would commit these acts? 

We do not do this because we don't want to admit that we are the problem and that the problem is amazingly difficult to solve. There is no one solution to solving these issues. Things can only change when we are brave enough to stand up to violent ideologies, hold parents accountable and understand biological predispositions.  

We must also realize that no matter what we do to regulate, teach and influence others the universe is cruel and we all die. As long as we care about each other we will experience sorrow and anger and it is in those times that we need to look at our own roles in the destruction of civilization. What we do in our day to day lives has an effect on the world around us and it is in the daily decisions that we define our values.

Maybe the next time we encounter the aftermath of a mass shooter or terrorist bombing we will understand that it is the society that we have created, the decisions of individuals and the cruelty of nature that we see in those acts and begin to take responsibility for the world around us. 

Asshole Ideologies

Some causes are worth fighting and dying for, but some causes are merely justifications for assholes to group together to enact their hatred on others. They resent humanity, life and their own lack of worth so they project their insecurities and malice outward to those their cause deems evil. And in the name of slaying the "evil" they become evil. Their misguided morality leads them to cause chaos and harm to the innocent and guilty alike. They're not guided by reasonable moral principles but instead they lash out at their enemies whom they have labeled their enemy based on superficial reasons. They hate those that do not share their race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation and boil all of ethics into an use vs them race to the grave.

As the violence escalates and ideologies clash it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be an asshole today. What's an asshole you ask?

Assholes wear masks because they do not want to be responsible for their actions. Assholes go to pick a fight when the other person clearly doesn't want one. Assholes blow up civilians because they know that if they were to enact their irrational war on their true enemy they would lose in a second. Assholes shoot drive cars into crowds hoping to hurt and kill people with signs. Assholes go around hating on people instead of building them up or ignoring them. Assholes don't negotiate. Assholes sign away lives in wars for selfish and psychotic reasons. Assholes sign laws into place for the sake of votes alone, neglecting philosophical principles and decency.

Assholes steal your stereo face plate but leave the stereo. You stupid mother fuckers!

Ideologies that include justifications for violence based on superficial features are problematic for anyone interested in peace.

What if all the sentences for criminals were voted on by large numbers of people online? After a trial takes place and someone is found guilty, the public is given a set of choices for sentencing and the outcome is determined by a mix of public vote and judge consensus. Certified judges would get paid to listen in on the trials and determine whether or not the public came to an acceptable decision. If the public were to write-in a sentence that was outrageous then the judges would reject the decision and it would go up again or be put to a smaller judgement pool of deciders. I think the American public would eat this idea up in a second.

That last paragraph aside I wonder how I would instill my value system in others if I could. How would I justify my moral presuppositions? How would I convince someone that they are wrong when they believe so passionately that what they are doing is right. So much so that they are willing to kill and/or die to prove it? I do know that it is impossible to have the kinds of conversations that lead humans toward more peace when you are being bombed, poisoned, bashed, stabbed, gassed or otherwise threatened by someone else's ideological battle ax.

Maybe I just haven't seen enough strife or misery in my life to feel the need for the hopeful embrace of ideological warfare but I think that part of what has lead to more and more people living lives free from violence comes from sticking to universal moral principles such as respect for property rights which includes bodily rights. It's not that you punish someone for breaking laws but that you protect those worth protecting from those that would take their property, life or general freedom.