[ronniesgal]

if they spent a little on security and let them do their jobs, they’d have more $$ in the long run.

[carcraft]

We pay for this BS because stores have to meet the bottom line. The truth is it hurts poor people most.

[marktwain]

if they spent a little on security and let them do their jobs, they’d have more $$ in the long run.

The key is "letting them do their jobs". This is very difficult when prosecutors and the city governments are doing everything they can to *not* prosecute theft.

[Allegra]

if they spent a little on security and let them do their jobs, they’d have more $$ in the long run.

You’re right. Unfortunately, in thugocracies like California, nobody, including a security guard is allowed to do anything to the shoplifters except maybe kick them out if they catch them. And if the thug(s) won’t leave, all they can do is call the police.

And that tends to worsen a lot of situations.

California’s, New York’s and other blue states’ soft-on-crime laws are assisting in bleeding those companies dry.

[nonliberal]

Yup. If the stores wanted to stop this they would hire security and staff the store accordingly. But they didn’t and they don’t. I just take my cues from the retail chains and try not to think about it too hard. It’s not my stuff they are stealing.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

They can hire the best security guards in the world, give them full authority... and go out of business in under a year as they would all be arrested and put on trial.

Once the system is weaponized your choices become limited.

Right now your best option is curb pick up.

The customer never sets foot in your store at all.