City
vidTO: Plain-clothed Security Debacle
[ - take down outside a Toronto LCBO - runs 3mins - ]
Outside of the Bay & Dundas LCBO store, two guys tackle and attempt to restrain a third man. Confused bystanders are unsure what's going on, and one person decides to record the incident on his cell phone. Some punches are thrown, the three grapple and roll around, and the victim claims to be having difficulty breathing. "Back off!" yells the puncher as bystanders begin to intervene.
"They have security guards at the LCBO?" one bewildered person asks. "Stop fucking choking him... you're going to break his fucking neck" shouts another with concern.
What's really happening: a suspected shoplifter was tackled by plain-clothed LCBO security personel, but it wasn't immediately clear to anyone who they were. Despite repeated calls by the security guards for bystanders to call 9-1-1, no one did. Apparently the LCBO has seen the video and knows that it has been circulating on YouTube. They also have told the mainstream news media that they will be re-assessing their security strategy, and dressing their security in clearly identifiable uniforms as a result.
This video was shown on CityTV this evening, although the incident happened last October.
Discussion
19 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Many retail outlets use plain clothes security guards, because, well, let's face it, no matter how many <i>deterrents</i> are in place, there are still those that don't get phased and will steal anyways.
<br><br>
Another reason for the lack of identifiable guards in most retail is that it can be intimidating to all customers, not just shoplifters. Most retail outlets aspire to emit a friendly and comfortable atmosphere in order to drive sales.
<br><br>
You'll usually only see identifiable guards in other stores for insurance purposes. They are completely useless when it comes to apprehending shoplifters as they never get the opportunity to witness the theft, and therefore have no right to stop them as they exit the store.
<br><br>
Which brings me to another big reason for undercover security: Cost. Slow times during the day might have minimal staff, especially at locations that aren't very busy. Even large department stores often go periods without any security working at all. So having <b>only</b> identifiable security guards lets shoplifters know when there <b>isn't</b> any security working.
<br><br>
So it's quite sad to see the LCBO give in to pressure because some criminal threw a fit in public. And yes, I say criminal despite the entry saying 'shoplifting suspect'. There are so many safeguards in place for plain clothes security guards, that by the time it gets to the point where they are arresting him, he was most certainly guilty of shoplifting.
<br><br>
In all my years at working in retail, I have never, <b>ever</b> seen someone get wrongly arrested or stopped by plain clothes security.
That said, there are a few problems with how these two handled this arrest:
- those punches weren't necessary
- they should have shouted "we're on-duty security" or otherwise identified themselves verbally and much more clearly to bystanders.
The shoplifter took a bottle of liquor and headed for the exit. He was approached by either the staff and/or the Loss prevention officers. He ran and punched a female employee in the face on the way out, breaking her nose. They chased him out of the store where he was tackled. *begin cellphone video*<br>
<br>I agree they should have been more clear that they were loss prevention officers, but don't think the punching was out of line at all. He already assaulted an employee (a woman nonetheless), broke their nose and was seriously resisting arrest.
<br>Another problem though was that they shouldn't have been so obvious in approaching him as he headed for the exit. Sometimes it's tough not to be obvious when they quickly come in, grab something and quickly leave, but ideally, he shouldn't have been running before he left the store. That puts everyone in a dangerous situation.
I'm impressed to see they caught a guy, in any case. I'm not a frequent shopper, but the last 2 times I've been in an LCBO it has been robbed, right before my eyes, and no one did a thing about it out of fear. It appears a ridiculously easy feat.
Private security would work if the security guards were smart.
Anyway. The problem, and this is getting more, or should be, attention here in America, is this...private or corporate security or police who have been given more power/jurisdiction, n more and more cases, being armed. Now, am I defending shoplifting? No. But, how far, are we willing to allow stores/private companies to go to protect their merchandise? What if a bystander was injured? Armed undercover security? Guns in the private/public sector creates a huge ball of wax.What if a cop shows up and sees a plainclothes security guy with a gun who is trying to identify himself but the cop mistakenly shoots him? If he punched the woman, then the creep got what he deserved, (well, maybe not chiking to death) but when all is said and done, this was about a bottle of booze. Read depression-era Steinbeck. What I see is private sector store/company owners with their own private armies and hired goons who operate just a little bit askew of the law. Civil Rights? Sure, pal, You get those when the cops show up. Maybe. I assume it's the same there as here, innocent until proven guilty. It looks like these private sector goons aren't trying to be only cops, but judge and jury rolled into one. Also, what if the employees decide to strike, do these goons show up before the cops to bust some heads? Are/Can/Do they spy on employees? What lengths do we allow the private business sector on this?
Calling police is the FIRST thing a security guard must do, not an afterthought.
You call police yourself, you don't bark out orders to the crowd to do it for you. (And by the way, you don't call 911, you call direct to your local Division, and speak to the duty officer there.)
You identify yourself as a security guard, clearly and completely, including your name and number, and the firm that employs you.
You announce to the suspect (and any crowd that gathers) that you are restraining them until the police arrive, and state the reason why. (To be fair, they may have done this before the video started.)
You do not punch a suspect. Ever. That's assault, regardless of the circumstances. Because they assaulted this guy, the security guards cannot provide credible testimony against him, and he may go free.
You do not suffocate a suspect, or force their joints backward. Doing so risks physical harm to the suspect, which makes it undue force, which is treated pretty much like assault. Claiming you had to do it because he wouldn't stop resisting means nothing. If you cannot detain a suspect without causing them physical harm, you cannot be a security guard.
I worked for the company that is now Group 4/Falck for 7 years, and saw a lot of clowns like this in the profession. The good news is that they don't last long. The bad news is that there are plenty more like them lined up to get their free handcuffs.
Their behaviour was digusting, and completely uncalled for.
<p>
I'm stunned and appalled that so many human beings would stand by passively while two rowdy boneheads assault someone.
</p><p>
If the dude on the floor did indeed punch someone in the face with no cause, that might be another story. But if I just walked in on this cold, and found out they were security guards, my immediate reaction would be outrage towards those two self-styled undercover arseholes.
</p><p>
Thank you to the folks who were speaking up and telling them to calm down. At least humanity still prevails in some people.</p>
Not the world I want to live in. Is it me, or are things in full reverse?
PS. Trivia, the word "goon" was first used or invented in the old Popeye Cartoons. Now ya' know: - )
Not the world I want to live in. Is it me, or are things in full reverse?"</i><Br><br>
Plain clothes security exist so visible security doesn't have to. 99% of the time you don't even know they are there. The whole system is designed to <b>stop</b> the same 'retail bouncer' situation you mention.<br><br>
In a highly competitive business world, a store must protect itself from losses or face the consequences. <Br><br>
So now the LCBO will be removing plain clothes LPO and resorting to uniformed guards at the entrances. Congratulations! You've just supported the same thing you oppose. Or perhaps you were suggesting that businesses just let people steal what they want? Because <b>that</b. sounds like an ideal solution.
rviolante@rogers.com