>Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that.

There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. (There are many more who don't actively enjoy it, but don't mind engaging in it and consider being competent at violence an important part of being a man.)

The pharmacy gives its security guards instruction not to use violence because they don't want to get sued when a guard seriously injures a thief: it is impossible at the scale of a chain of stores to subdue and detain thieves without some risk of killing some thief or seriously injuring him.

Or maybe they just don’t want any violence in their stores at all? I will avoid shopping somewhere that has regular ass whoopings way more than I would avoid shopping somewhere with regular shoplifting.

So I guess you've never frequented Waffle House ;-)

What are they supposed to do, just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely?

I’d rather shop at a store that actually prevents theft, deterring future thieves from stealing. It will be a safer place to shop with lower prices.

Are you saying you would continue shopping in a store where you regularly saw violence against people who might be thieves, on the assumption you’d never be mistaken for one?

No, I’m saying that I would prefer to shop at a store that uses shopkeeper’s privilege to detain thieves using reasonable force.

The legal limits are very clear and simply enacting violence “against people who might be thieves” is not within them.

Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place.

I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide whether to draw a weapon, because he clearly would have overpowered me and put me in imminent fear of death. I handed him my receipt with one hand while preparing for the possibility to draw a weapon with the other, thankfully he seemed satisfied and turned out to be a real Walmart employee.

I decided I didn't want to ever face that decision again so I never went back

I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience.

I live in New Zealand.

I said weapon, not gun, but theoretically if it were a gun, it wouldn't feel any different than shopping without one. Put a small watergun down your waistband and walk around for a couple days. After a couple you won't notice it, and no one else is going to notice it either. It will become utterly mundane, it similarly applies to a dagger or whatever concealable weapon one may be able to get ahold of.

> the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me

If you ever visit Texas take a look around the entrances to stores, shops, restaurants, bars etc. You should see large white signs with a "gun-buster" and a 30.0* code. or a large "51%" symbol in red. It would be incredibly rare to see a person with an open carry gun thou

30.05 is to tell people that "constitutional carry" (carry without a LTC) is not allowed on the property. A person with a License to Carry may carry on the property.

30.06 says a LTC person may not conceal carry on the property.

30.07 says a LTC person may not open carry on the property.

The 51% lets people who carry know that the establishment has a liquor/beer permit and receives 51% of income from sales of alcohol. Meaning it's a felony to bring a firearm onto the premises. The others are misdemeanor trespass

Then you may see a reminder 46.03 sign at places like schools, sporting venues etc as a reminder that weapons (not just guns) are not allowed.

That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

It reminds me of "Posted"[0] signs that I've seen in lots of places in the southern US. Growing up in the Northeast, we didn't have such things[1].

[0] "Posted" is shorthand for "Private Property. No Trespassing." I get that the word "posted" means "I posted the sign. Pay attention or you might get arrested or shot." But I have no idea how the latter got shortened to the former. It's also an interesting regionalism, although not specifically related to legal codes and their taxonomy.

[1] Where I grew up we just had "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" signs.

Edit: expanded footnote [0].

If I'm understanding this correctly then, ultra-conservative Texas has more local regulation on open carry than ultra-progressive Washington?

The restrictions on unlicensed open carry of a loaded weapon in a vehicle alone makes the Washington regulation way more of a hassle than in in Texas, although they both have location restrictions.

The 30.0* signs are basically “no trespassing” sign that property owners (stores shops buildings etc) may elect to refuse entry to persons in various modes of carry. Most commonly will allow people to conceal carry with a license. Most places (in mid-large cities) don’t want people walking around openly carrying a gun in their place of business.

The 51% is alcohol & guns don’t go well together. Conservative Texas would probably like to do away with alcohol altogether, they still only allows beer & wine sales on Sunday and only because Sunday Football. Liquor bottle can only be bought at liquor stores. Unlike California where you can pick up some Johnnie & Jameson with school supplies and toilet paper before church.

Most regulations are on when and how you use the firearm. Having a LTC means you have a little more forgiveness for trespassing because the signs were hidden behind the door or plants etc. Constitutional carry will still be charged. But LTC has more penalties for misuse, such as brandishing to intimidate carries greater penalties

That this comment was downvoted (while stating that they live in NZ, a distinctly different culture from the USA), really underlines what a lunatic society those of us in the USA are in. Guns aren’t normal in most of the western world, folks.

The job of a security guard is to observe and report. Let the multi-billion dollar companies like walmart and home depot pay for actual law enforcement to be on hand when a security guard observes a suspected shoplifter. The security guard isn't paid enough or trained enough to get physical with customers.

Shopkeeper’s privilege exists as long-standing common law doctrine for a reason. No business should be forced to tolerate theft, or be forced to pay off-duty police officers to prevent it.

And no one is compelled to be a security guard; if the risks and pay don’t align, they’re free to walk away.

I had never heard of 'shopkeeper's privilege' but looked it up [1] and yes, seems to be a real thing in the United States and nowhere else, according to a quick scan of that wiki article.

More evidence to me that the US was set up to serve corporatist interests over pretty much everything (and everyone) else. Why else provide shopkeepers with some special legal status? (Which again, they don't have in any other country.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege

Don't forget people used to live in shops and castle doctrine also applies

In the 1970s I saw a security guard or 2 chase a thief out of a store then tackle and detain him right in front of me. Didn't make me hesitate to go back to the store or cause any worry that guards might tackle me.

Yes. Thievery makes everything in the store more expensive. I have no interest in shopping at a store that has thieves in it and law enforcement does nothing to stop thieves in my area.

> just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely

Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.

I have a hard time imagining why they would close profitable stores otherwise. They’re generally not in the business of turning down profit.

The point isn't that businesses are closing profitable stores, but the stores are unprofitable for reasons other than shrinkage. You're being fed a narrative about crime. Why? Who benefits?

> Finally, corporate claims are not holding up to scrutiny, and are being used to close stores that are essential assets for many communities. For instance, the CEO of Walgreens has acknowledged that perhaps retailers “cried too much last year” and overspent on security measures that failed to reflect real needs. And although the National Retail Federation said that “organized retail crime” drove nearly half of all inventory losses in 2021, the group later retracted its claim; it now no longer attaches a dollar amount to money that is lost due to retail theft. And in memorable cases, major retailers have chosen to maintain stores with much higher rates of crime, while closing others.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities...

Target closed stores under this excuse last year. One was in downtown Oakland, where I can easily believe it (large unhoused population). Multiple news stories reported that this was only a cover to close underperforming stores and not the primary reason for closures.

> There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security.

Bit of an assumption there.

There is no easy answer for this breakdown. The cat is out of the bag and these losers aren't going to stop unless they are stopped and face real consequences. Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance. Of course that doesn't stop anything and quality of life goes down.

> Though as you said, the stores do not want the liability of guards taking action so they are left with locking everything behind glass and deploying privacy invading surveillance.

Stores have plenty of incentives to engage in privacy invading surveillance even ignoring shoplifting as a factor. If a store saw zero shoplifting they'd still deploy privacy invading surveillance because it's profitable for them to do it right now and it will only be increasingly profitable for them to do it in the near future.

You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense:

https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...

That's gonna depend where the jury is coming from. SF, yes. "Try that in a small town" hicks probably not.

Why don't people from SF also get a pejorative?

Because they are here to defend themselves.

more like "try that in a small town" police will see what happened, "atta boy" and get on with other things. never even reaches the courts.

you can use a reasonable amount of force to prevent people from taking property (or if you're acting as an agent thereof) in Texas. But still you can always be taken to civil court and be at the mercy of whatever judge. I imagine in San Francisco you will almost certainly lose to the criminal who was stealing something if you use any amount of force other than to defend yourself unless you're a cop

Plus, like everybody in retail, LP’s measured performance indicator is how busy they look when management is around. The best way to do that without getting in a fight is to annoy people who don’t actually have anything to hide.

That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?

Also: Local cops spend their time going after speeders and parking violators who they know won't be dangerous and they can safely farm for revenue, instead of looking for violent crime.

> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal...

Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

No. Overstaying a visa or not leaving when temporary protected status is suddenly revoked (or asylum is not granted) is not a criminal offense under US federal law.

Technically it is all about status since a visa is about entry. Like the date on your visa is the window you have to enter the country but you'd have an I-94 or some status forum that dictates the parameters of your stay. (though yeah, everyone just calls this "overstaying your visa") (IANAL but have travel abroad before and well... I was in grad school and conversations about visa and status come up a lot when the majority of students have temporary status and there's a president talking about changing the rules)

Immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's not a crime per se to overstay a visa like say shoplifting or killing someone. It's more like there's a proceeding to determine whether you did overstay and then when there's a finding of fact they basically tell you you have to leave or they remove you from the country forcibly. It would be patently ridiculous to jail someone for overstaying or for working on a tourist visa or for any of a number of these things.

You cannot be more wrong.

Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

I would love to understand if you truly believed that no such federal statute exists, or we’re just intentionally spreading misinformation.

The visa is your entry document. The I-94 is your status document[0]. The visa outlines the conditions (including dates) you may enter the country. The I-94 is the record of entry/departure and dictate your required date of departure.

  >  This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

This is a completely different conversation and scenario that what was being previously discussed. There is a pretty significant difference between illegal border crossing vs overstaying your status. The latter never performed an illegal border crossing. These people are documented.

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldepar...

And I believe all of this conflation of entering the country illegally with overstaying a visa or violating the restrictions on a visa having passed through a Border Control checkpoint is at the heart of a lot of what's happening right now. The whole concept of "illegal immigration" was expanded to contain this other category of person who went through Border Control properly, they have a passport from their home country with a stamp or a visa, but they are not complying with the requirements of the visa or for the entry stamp. These people are not criminals and many of them have put down roots here and would be model citizens if they had citizenship.

Because ICE is having a lot of trouble finding enough people who crossed illegally to round up and put in concentration camps, they're scouring the country for people in the other category. And in many cases the threat of visa cancellation is being used to suppress political speech. A lot of people don't know that because they don't understand that there's a way to get here legally that doesn't involve getting citizenship or a green card. I think if you've never left the country it probably doesn't occur to you that there's a whole system of checkpoints that you can use to enter the country but almost zero control after that other than your own good faith efforts. And this is true just about everywhere else in the world.

That is manifestly not the same thing as overstaying a visa. Moreover, not only does it not apply if you’re already found to be in the country illegally you have to be caught in the act of entering - it was amended in 1996 to apply a civil penalty by the same act that created expedited removal (yes, it is not supposed to be in lieu of any statutory criminal penalty that _may_ be applied) and lower court judges have found against the re-entry provisions in 1326 [1]

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitu...

> This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry

None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.

It. Is. Not. A. Crime. To. Overstay. A. Visa.

>> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal...

>Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

It is not[0].

Being present in the US without legal status is a civil infraction and not a crime. Unlawful entry is a criminal act however.

That said, the vast majority of undocumented folks entered the US legally and overstayed their visas. Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

Those who made an (whether valid or not) asylum claim are legally in the United States until their asylum claim can be adjudicated.

[0] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...

Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

If you had read the post you’re responding to, you would have seen that it asserts that the majority of undocumented people in the country actually were documented when they entered the country.

Also it’s poor form to copy/paste the same response over and over, even if you were reading the posts you replied to.

>Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

Yes. The link[0] I posted with my comment cites that specific law:

   To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is 
   likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an 
   alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:

       Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other 
       than designated by immigration officers;
       
       Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
       Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully 
       concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.

   The punishment under this federal law is no more than six months of 
   incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry. These
   acts of improper entry -- including the mythic "border jumping" -- are 
   criminal acts associated with illegally immigrating to the United States.
 
   Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be 
   proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

And in fact, I said:

   Being present in the US without legal status is a civil infraction and not a 
   crime. Unlawful entry is a criminal act however.

   That said, the vast majority of undocumented folks entered the US Legally and 
   overstayed their visas. Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

Where did I claim otherwise? Seriously. That's not a rhetorical question.

[0] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...

Repeating the same irrelevant statute doesn't make it relevant.

Illegal is not the same as criminal, but a civil violation is still illegal. Someone without lawful status is subject to detention and deportation. A person who overstayed a visa or is otherwise undocumented is, by definition, here illegally and falls under the legal term “illegal alien.”

That's as may be. But that's not what GP said.

It is not the case that "every illegal immigrant is already a criminal," which is what GP claimed.

It’s not ICE’s opinion about who is illegal, it’s congress’s. Didn’t they create the immigration laws that are on the books? I can never understand why people seem to blame the enforcement agencies for the laws they are enforcing.

But I agree with the sentiment that they are selecting the easiest targets.

ICE can make them un-illegal by granting them parole, without further action from congress. AFAIK they can even do it unilaterally, though congress could choose to check them later.

Don't know how it is in the states but in most places in Europe using violence against a violent person is likely to end up very badly for you, even if you are a guard and have the necessary permits and training. You are not going to risk being fined or jailed to stop some criminal from shoplifting from a store that is not even yours.

What is the role of a security guard if not to wield violence? Their equipment implies a capability for violence. Are they unable to perform their job legally in Europe?

Security theater. Intimidation. Calling the cops. Insurance requirements.

Neither stores nor the guard want to escalate a situation to a violent situation. The stores don't want bad press or liability for collateral damage. The security guard isn't trying to put their body on the line for some merchandise. Yeah, maybe you have a cowboy looking for trouble, but based on my experience talking/working with some guards, I'd be surprised if they are instructed to get physically involved.

They are there to intervene when there is violence against a person, not property.

If you want to risk hurting someone whilst restraining him… Otherwise, it’s not worth it. What equipment are you talking about anyway, the nightstick? In my language it is formally called the “defensa”, implying that it can’t be used to attack someone.

There's a reason local rent-a-cops here hire almost exclusively seniors: they're _not_ going to go chasing someone down, they're just going to follow instructions, go for their walk around the site every 30 minutes and generally not cause trouble when they get bored.

observe and report. That's it.

Violence is okay to perpetrate, but not to respond with. A violent person will probably get it out of their system quickly. If you fight them, though, that creates a feedback loop that won't stop until someone is injured or dead. Just let people express themselves and everyone will be fine.

At first glance I read this as a troll comment. But with your comment history, I'm not so sure.

"Violence is okay to perpetrate, but not to respond with."

That's a value judgement. Here's my value judgement: Violence is not OK to perpetrate and a response of any magnitude to stop that violence is acceptable, up to and including killing the assailant.

Glad I live in a state within the US that supports this value, as well as providing people the means to do what they need to do if they find themselves victimized.

I don't think you'd feel at home here.

This mindset is what perpetually allows the violent to abuse the weak. What a violent person needs is a boot in the mouth. Or as many as necessary until he understands that’s not the way to behave. We are talking about people who generally have a low level of intelligence and do not understand anything else.

Does that mean the boot-weirder is also a violent person in need of a boot to the mouth?

Or is it not “real” violence if it’s justified? In which case, pretty much all violent people will tell you they are justified.

Which means it reduces to “it’s ok for me to be violent because I’m righteous, unlike those thugs”

Maybe there was something to the high-trust society we once had.

Perhaps it had something going for it that we lost when we decided to forsake it.

The high trust society is "gone" in many segments of society, but I don't see that we've made a decision to forsake it. Forsaking implies renouncing or turning away from it intentionally.

And how did we 'forsake' it?

When my mom attended the same high school I graduated from, in the 70s, kids who were hunters would leave firearms in racks on the back of their pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Not only did said firearms never once get stolen or used to shoot anyone, but, such a thing was simply unthinkable.

When I attended the same high school in the 00s, we once were put on a district-wide lockdown because some kid at the other high school all the way across town had inadvertently left his paintball gun in the back seat of his (locked) car—after a weekend of fun in the woods with his friends—in the school parking lot, and a security officer saw it.

Now, today, we get periodic local PSAs urging people to not leave firearms in their locked cars in their own driveways at night, because people are breaking into cars, stealing the guns, and using them to commit crimes.

I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something here has been forsaken. That the way things were a mere ~50 years ago seems unthinkably impossible today clearly speaks volumes.

I remember the 70s and my experience was nothing like your mom's. Population centers have always been full of petty crime; rural places are still pretty free from crime. You can still move to plenty of towns with population <1000 in the US, and you'll have no trouble leaving your gun or laptop in your car there.

The one big difference though is today we have school shootings, so folks are pretty humorless about guns near schools. I'd love to hear your ideas for how to solve that, because they keep happening.

There's definitely a rural element to it. I left probably $10,000 worth of construction equipment out for the stealing for 2 years while building my house in the country. Just totally unmonitored vacant property, surrounded by poor people in trailers who badly could have used the money if they cared to steal it. Of course neighbors would never think to steal it because burning your name in a small town is the same thing as banishment or starving to death because you'll never get another job / lover / friend / help.

It would have been gone in 15 minutes at my house in the city.

In a rural area, there’s only a handful of people who would notice the opportunity. Odds are pretty good that they won’t take it, because most people aren’t thieves. In the city, thousands of people will spot the opportunity and odds are good that a few of them are thieves.

Your theory of urban/rural bifurcation is overly reductive. My city had a population of about 40,000 in the 70s (when guns were left in racks in the backs of trucks in the high school parking lot)—it's about twice that today. (I did however just return from visiting my wife's hometown in northern Idaho, which has a population of about 500, and indeed I did not feel the need to lock my car, despite keeping a firearm inside of it.)

I don't care to propose any solutions here, especially around such politically-volatile topics, because I believe the actual changes that transpired and the reasons for why they did are worth acknowledging and investigating first.

40,000 people live within a few miles of me. That isn't a city, that's a suburb or a town.

Also the leaving guns in vehicles thing could also be affected by another number here. And that is miles driven per capita and vehicles owned per household averages. That is you could have the same total number of thieves that steal guns, especially among those with more poverty, but as you increase the number of cars groups that could no longer afford them have them. Also the number of miles driven means the potential thieves are covering way more territory.

Anecdotally I heard about things like this in the late 80s and early 90s. Farmers were complaining that groups out of Chicago were running off with all the stuff they'd leave around all over the farm.

In addition starting in the mid 70s was a long recessionary period (stagflation) after decades of a good economy in the 60s that shook the US to the core.

I assure you there's quite the difference between a city (that even has “City” it its name!) of 80,000, and a town of 500. It's easy to see conflating the two as “high density population dweller ignorance” for anyone who has lived in or near all three (500, 80,000, 1M+).

I mean yea, I'm from bumfuk nowhere farmland where there was nothing close. Of course that meant a lot in the late 70s where you might get 3 channels on the TV. We were very disconnected from the world back then.

That's no longer true. Everyone has a cellphone pretty much everywhere. You don't think of hoodlum stuff while bored, you watch a livestream of it and think "I could do that too".

We live in a much different world now.

> actual changes that transpired and the reasons for why they did

Well go on then. Let's hear your theory out loud.

Feel free to assume whatever you'd like and ascribe whatever implicit outgroup labels you'd like as well.

> I won't speculate on how we forsook it, but clearly something was forsaken.

I cant sum it up properly but three things come to mind: Fear - we have been filled with fear, this in turn leads to more people forsaking responsibility and wanting the government to act as a nanny to protect them, which leads to a lot of childish behavior whether it be people acting helpless or people aping being big and tough. So fear leading to a lack of responsibility leading to childish behavior. This makes people more self centered and less considerate of others around them.

Edit, to add: This lack of responsibility is also tied to legal liability of being sued. Cant take down a crook because they might get hurt and sue which makes me wonder what kind of legal system we have which ignores the irresponsible act of criminality. To me it's "live and die by the sword" - you fuck around and you find out. Of course this can be reversed, a person taking action against a criminal can be hurt and then who is responsible? The liability cuts deeply both ways. There is no way to win unless that changes or we install a safety net.

I think it’s the news.

Our monkey brains can’t comprehend a world with billions of people in it. Stuff on the news is rare pretty much by definition. It gets rarer the broader your news gets. National news has stuff that’s much rarer than local, and world news is rarer still.

But your monkey brain doesn’t get that. It sees a story about somebody getting murdered and it does, holy shit somebody got murdered, this is bad! It sees these stories daily and it concludes that the world is incredibly dangerous.

This isn’t new, but the volume is way up. Decades ago, we might get twenty minutes of world news each night on the TV. Now we’re constantly bombarded with it.

People in developed countries are safer than pretty much any human has ever been before, and they feel more threatened than anyone before as well, because they’re exposed to a deluge of tragedies. The fact that the denominator on those tragedies is eight billion just doesn’t compute.

Oh, and leaded gasoline probably doesn’t help. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. The last cohort with substantial childhood exposure won’t retire for another two decades or so.

The news intentionally pushes stories to make people afraid, but I think that's only part of the problem. There's a ton of well-earned distrust in the institutions which are supposed to protect us. Our "justice" system is corrupt from top to bottom. Agencies that should be working to protect the public are instead helping corporations exploit them. Even our representatives don't actually represent us or our interests and vast numbers of people already don't see any point to voting in a clearly rigged system while the rest are gerrymandered and disenfranchised by it.

For most of American's history each generation was better off than the previous one, but that's no longer the case. People's standard of living is in decline. They are forced to watch their children struggle in ways they never had to. The things that made people feel safe and stable and part of a community like homes and jobs with pension plans are out of reach for most people. More and more people are sliding into poverty.

All of this leads to a situation where people increasingly feel that they have to look out for themselves and that makes people fearful and distrustful.

The problem is 'actual' reality is much more complicated than this.

50 years ago husbands beat the living shit out of their wives without recourse of the law. 50 years ago drunk driving was a socially acceptable past time. I knew people with dozens of DWIs and other that had killed people in alcohol related accidents that didn't get any prison time. What we call hate crimes now were just crimes that weren't investigated by the police.

This said, there is something that has change.

24/7 news and always on news with the internet. The fears we had of bad things happening to us were things we may have watched once a day, not every 15 minutes on the hour. That seemingly had a pretty large effect on how people viewed their safety in this world.

I'm going guess that at some point between the 70s and in 00s a lot of children were murdered in schools by people with guns.

I know of a Walmart shelf stacker who ran after someone who grabbed a $5 hat on their way out. They had a run-in with the getaway car and ended up in a coma for two months and Walmart had to spend over $2m in medical bills.

(the offenders were caught by police later that day, so it really wasn't worth the trouble to run after them)

If a hit and run hadn't been involved they wouldn't have gotten caught.

It's something I've thought about. It's not totally clear from the police reports. I've read them through several times and the offender had hit about seven stores that day tearing off Rogaine en masse, and the cops seemed to be on their trail already. The hit-n-run certainly would have put a flame up their ass.

Someone has never worked retail. They know they can get away with it because pretty much any corporate store has a policy that employees can't try to stop them. An employee at a local REI was fired for trying to stop one of the daily thefts they were having.

Point being, willingness to engage in violence has nothing to do with it.