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