The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday in the noon hour.
QUESTION: Due to major theft, some stores have now hired armed security guards. Do you agree or disagree with the stores’ decision to hire armed security guards?
Talk about it….
YES!!!
Maybe not shoot the perp but give the guard an aluminum bat and whack the miscreant on the side of it’s head or across the perps chest!!
Large stores are leaving San Francisco because the public is staying away due to safety. It is time to jail those breaking the law. This dumb experiment we have going now is not working.
The experimentation has been ongoing for decades,
newsom,
member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 1997 – 2004
SF mayor 2004 – 2011
Lieutenant Governor of California 2011 – 2019
Governor of California 2019 – present
With all those years of experience, committing knee jerk Photo OPs, you’d think he might have a clue.
.
SF and CA are experiments upon citizens, fueled by your tax dollars.
They rarely take any responsibility for failures, but stand ever ready to throw more of your dollars at their mistakes.
.
ONLY way to correct problems they created is to vote them out of office.
At this point 100% tired of the criminal mentality so apparent in our society today
.
Agree.
.
They need to do all they can to protect their store and inventory and allow us law abiding CITIZENS and AUTHORIZED RESIDENTS accessbto goods and services.
.
Lawlessness and the coddling of criminals by leftists and socialists MUST END NOW.
.
Yes. If the security guards are unarmed, they should be trained to shoot with their feet.
That smells bad.
I have been to countries where there are a lot of security guards. They all have side arms or shotguns.
No shoplifting or crime at those stores. So I agree 100%
Would you mind letting us know which countres? And how are the gun laws for regular people in those countries? Too many crazy people here owns a gun, and are not necessaarily going to be deterred by a guard with a gun. It could easily turn into the wild west. And no I’m not for taking guns away from responsible gun owners or hunters, nor do I advocate for a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Hong Kong
China
Tokyo
I have been in all three and seen armed guards in numerous stores. I have no idea of the gun laws except Japan which does not allow it basically. However I was there when the mass killing in a senior home was done by a bladed object.
Just Sayin….where is that?
Kowloon, China and Metro Manila, Philippines.
Most of those countries mentioned have totalitarian government. The government watches every step and there are harsh laws for any kind of behavior that the government does not agree with. Shoplifting is infuriating and out of control and need to be dealt with, however, we don’t want to become China.
When I was a teenager, a strawberry farmer in Denmark put up a sign, and left baskets, pick your own strawberries, and leave the money in the can. Every size basket had a price on them. When the story broke everyone laughed and thought he would be robbed blind. Did not happen, people stopped picked their strawberries and left the money. I’m sure some cheated a little, but not to the point where he had to stop. In fact after that other farmers copied the idea. Totally different mindset.
Totalitarian Government vs No Government. Pretty soon we will be every man for himself. I felt much safer walking those streets, than Monument Boulevard in Concord at night.
Useless especially prop 47 now
Just let everyone be armed. Problem solved.
Then you will have a lot of innocent people getting shot. Even trained law enforcement at times shoot the wrong person when things are heated.
Not sure that would make me feel any safer. It would be easy to be caught in the crossfire. Uncover security along with someone in a security uniform though would make sense.
No. The laws need to change first because unless the guard can show he is at risk of being killed, they will arrest him for murder. In my humble opinion, if someone is casually strolling out the door with say $800 dollars of merchandise (less than the Prop 47 amount) you should legally be able to casually shoot him.
Retail stores should not have to bear that responsibility. If they do, they will pass the cost on to the consumer. There are enough laws and penalties designed to discourage theft, but liberal DA’s and judges aren’t enforcing any of those laws. Armed security guards will encourage more thieves to carry a gun, and they will not hesitate to open fire on anybody who attempts to stop them. We already saw what happened at the Home Depot store in Pleasanton last month, when that poor employee was shot and killed by a shoplifter.
If by chance, an armed security guard is able to capture a thief or two, they will turn them over to the police, who will arrest them, only to have some liberal DA or judge release them back into society to steal again.
Shoplifting isn’t what it used to be, with somebody stuffing a steak under their coat, or kids stealing a candy bar. It’s more than that now, it’s more in the line of terrorizing. Some employees and customers have been traumatized, and are living their lives in fear and anxiety. The new breed of shoplifters that we are seeing today, should be charged with acts of terrorism.
Dawg, I do agree with you that shoplifting is different what it used to be. When I worked in Palo Alto Stanford Mall, we had shoplifters, things disappeared, often small items, fashion jewelery, belts, socks. Yes, once in ahwile something of more value. When I started at Macy’s in Palo Alto, in 2010, security held classes and we were made aware of what kind of behavior to look for. At that time the store lost more to internal theft than outside theft, although internal theft was easier to catch, since it was often new employees, and not just one incident. They were caught on camera. I think now people are more bold, cut wires, grab stuff and just walk away, or I should say run, they don’t care who sees them. It is infuriating.
No amount of security is going to do squat when they cannot even block a person from leaving without being fired, then sued. The left’s lunacy continues to turn any city ran by democrats into a cesspool of feces, homeless, and crime spree ridden drug infused nightmares. Ask yourself why they silenced Tucker, and you’ll see where our society is headed after next election.
It doesn’t help. The security guards are mainly for observe and report. The armed guards can’t really shoot unless theirs lives or other people lives are at risk.
In SF, I know the Walgreens have armed guard (some are sfpd off duty officers) at high risk locations (23 and mission, 4th and market, 18 and Castro, ect…) but it doesn’t deter thieves. the other day, a security guard at the 4th and market location , shot a thieve and there has been a protest at that location.
Most shoplifters are smug and have a, I dare you to stop me, attitude. This one in SF was stopped for good. Probably overkill for the crime (pun intended), but years of this attitude has come to extreme measures.
Or, another idea would be for the government to do their job. I know it is radical, but we might try it and see what happens.
No, they are not adequately trained. Shoplifting does not carry the death penalty. Some real cops are available for rent and they can carry guns. A night stick or bat to the shins would stop any determined thief.
Stores need a way of quickly locking their doors in case of a shop lifting raiding group that passes fire safety laws.
Looting has historically been met with shoot on sight orders, and this is looting. They are not hiding a can of beer under their shirt but filling up grocery carts and threatening any who come near.
If anything, they need to hire more parking attendants because most criminals stage before entering the store.
I agree with their decision, as the alternate is to watch your life long effort at successful industry walk out the door, without consequence to the thief. This will only be a temporary fix, though, as the thieves will learn quickly, if they do not know already, any arms are for show.
Yes if they are sufficiently trained and the retailers are allowed to deduct the cost from their taxes
The lockdown caused so much anger and resentment… People came out hating and destroying their own cities.
.Newsom’s eyes are closed and he has tunnel vision and cannot see the problems HE caused. Letting illegals in this country is the worst . He and his D list partner cater caters to them for votes.
Just imagine if he runs for President and all his dumb followers get him in.. He will destroy the United States with his hairbrained ideas.
End Social Media and the world will be a better place, especially School.
It’s very scary having a President who is incompetent and senile. Nothing will change until these lame brains are out of office!
Guard dogs work best to scare criminals..
Maybe give the way Singapore handles crime a chance.
That would sort things out toot sweet.
Unarmed guards?
Tell it to Home Depot in Pleasanton.
ALL? No. Some yes. High end stores that are targets might want to hire a guard with a gun. But maybe not the local small stores even if they are robbed the most. Those stores usually can’t afford guards let alone one with a gun.
If you are wondering why the shoplifting has increased, read ahead. If you voted for it. look in the mirror.
Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.[2] It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.
The crimes affected were:
Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
Personal use of most illegal drugs (Below a certain threshold of weight)[3]
Source: Wiki
Yes absolutely. This definitely require proper (professional) training to implement.