Security Reaction

Loss prevention officers are common place in most large retail outlets.  Their presence provides a needed level of deterrence to help ensure all products leaving the store are properly paid for.  According to information and statistics provided by the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention (NASP), a non-profit organization; www.shopliftingprevention.org, “more than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from retailers each year.  That’s more than $35 million per day.   Shoplifting affects more than the offender. It overburdens the police and the courts, adds to a store’s security expenses, costs consumers more for goods, costs communities lost dollars in sales taxes and hurts children and families.”  Based on these two facts alone, most would agree that shoplifting is a problem for all of us.

Although most loss prevention officers receive adequate training, many are given the title of “Loss Prevention Officer” after little or no training.  Combine this with the fact that most LP officers work in plain clothes and are not not easily identifiable as part of the store’s security team and it often leads to situations involving untold risks and liabilities.

During the commission of most crimes, the shoplifter will know if uniformed security is present.  The shoplifter will know as soon as a uniformed police officer approaches.  And generally, a shoplifter will know when he or she has been caught, before it actually happens.  With plain clothed loss prevention officers, who often dress to blend in with the surroundings, this often isn’t the case.   When an undercover officer approaches a shoplifter they will be surprised at the most inopportune time, when their adrenalin is running at peak capacity.  It is during this initial contact that the shoplifter will decide if he will fight or run.  Either decision requires quick and decisive action on the part of the undercover officer.

If the offender runs, the loss prevention officer almost feels compelled to give chase.  Often resulting in injury to the LP officer, the suspect or innocent shoppers, a foot pursuit is not necessarily the best decision.  When approaching a shoplifter, the loss prevention officer should approach from the side that offers the most likely avenue of escape.  Although this might cause the shoplifter to fight, if flight is not available, an experienced officer can deescalate the situation quickly and quietly.

If the shoplifter does decide to resist, either verbally or physically, the loss prevention officer may be seen as a source of the problem, not part of the solution.  As an undercover security officer, many may not realize that the officer is trying to make an apprehension.  Some may actually jump in to help the shoplifter, who may appear as an innocent victim.  If the shoplifter is crying out for help, repeatedly yelling he is being attacked, the apprehension may prove very dangerous for the loss prevention officer.  The loss prevention officer must maintain control of the situation and, while in the midst of a confrontation, demand others to stay back and not interfere with the apprehension.

Most shoplifters carry small knives or box cutters, which enable them to open packages quickly to remove the contents.  These tools can easily become weapons, used against the loss prevention officer to elude capture.  In over 70% of all apprehensions that become violent, one or more individuals will be injured.  If the shoplifter or an innocent bystander is injured, a lawsuit typically follows.

The best course of action to follow when making an apprehension is to avoid foot chases and physical confrontations.  Typically, the value of the stolen merchandise will not justify an injury, civil proceeding or even death resulting from the loss prevention officer’s overwhelming desire to make a recovery.  Instead, a loss prevention officer should obtain a suspect description, direction of travel and vehicle information (if applicable) and turn this information over to police.  If a video is available and store management authorizes its release, it too should be given to police.

The value of the deterrence that loss prevention officers provide is not easy to measure.  Often, the publicity and lawsuits that accompany an apprehension “gone too far” becomes detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the loss prevention program.

Be Sociable, Share!

•