Because it's your job, and because the outcome of not stopping it is the rotting of your community, as we see here.
Why have that job if it's revealed it is actually less than security theater?
I sense I come off a bit hostile, but "not doing anything" results in what we now see. And if your job isn't to stop theft, then what is it? Perhaps a job with physical dangers should get paid more and have better health benefits, but to say "not my job" removes pay from the discussion.
By this logic, what is the minimum a thief should take for you to stop them? Should it be the amount close or equal to the monetary value you put on your life?
Are all products essentially free at all stores because they are worth less than your life?
> Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.
It's going to massively reduce it.
Theft is an economic issue. I shop in stores without armed guards everywhere because I don’t live in an area with an massive level of income disparity like San Francisco.
This is a common misunderstanding/misrepresentation. Yes, most stores have polices against physical force but those policies exist to control a minority of security guards. I've worked private retail security/loss prevention before and the attitude of most of us was a very valid "why would I risk my life and health over a toothbrush someone is walking out of the store with?" It makes zero sense. It's not my property, any paltry bonus I may get is in no way worth my safety and I'm not a cop so I don't have qualified immunity. The only guard that would tackle you at the exit is the kind of guard that has a propensity for violence and took the loss prevention job because the police and military already rejected them. Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.