31 minute read
INTERVIEWING
Evaluating Memory: I Remember It This Way, Part Two
Witnessing an event is an extremely complex process beginning with the acquisition of the observation, followed by the retention or storage phase, and finally the retrieval phase where the recollection is described verbally.
The human memory has been studied for well over 100 years by researchers around the world. As far back as 1902 in Berlin a staged event in a classroom was studied for the accuracy of the witnesses’ retrieval of information. The students in the classroom were broken into groups and asked to write a report on their observations of a staged event—some immediately, some a day or a week later. The study revealed that the smallest number of mistakes was 26 percent erroneous statements, and the largest number of errors was 80 percent. The more emotional part of the fictitious event, where a gun was drawn and a shot fired, averaged 15 percent more errors than the first half. In addition, statements made by the participants were inaccurately attributed or simply made up. Plus, some of the major points of the staged event were completely eliminated by a number of witnesses.
This study from 1902 has been replicated in a variety of different ways and fashions over the subsequent years, but each concluded that the human memory was far from accurate. The memories are described by most researchers as falling into three stages: 1) the acquisition stage, 2) the retention stage, and 3) the retrieval stage.
One hundred forty-one witnesses to a staged classroom event viewed a distraught student attacking a professor. The event, which was videotaped for comparison to the witness accounts, showed that the attack lasted thirty-four seconds. When questioned about the duration of the attack, the witnesses’response averaged eighty-one seconds, almost three times longer than it took.
by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
Zulawski and Sturman are executives in the investigative and training firm of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (w-z.com). Zulawski is a senior partner, and Sturman is president. Sturman is also a member of ASIS International’s Retail Loss Prevention Council. They can be reached at 800-222-7789 or via email at dzulawski@w-z.com and ssturman@w-z.com.
© 2019 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
Acquisition Stage
When a witness first observes an event, only some of the details are observed and stored as part of the subsequent memory. The witness has to determine based on their observations which details are worth remembering based on where their eyes were focused and which details might be important later in deciding what to do.
Retention Stage
The retention stage is the time between the observation of the event and recalling the details observed. The retention period could be a matter of moments or a much longer period of time depending on the witness’s need to talk about the actions. The retention stage of the observation can be affected when the witness is privy to new information. This new information could be provided by other witnesses to the event, media reporting, the interviewer’s questioning the witness, or a variety of other sources.
Retrieval Stage
This part of the memory can be one of the more difficult components since the memory is not stored in one particular location in the brain but rather spread throughout the brain and linked in many different ways using our senses. The accuracy of the witness’s information retrieval can be affected in all three of these areas. If the witness failed to observe a particular detail of the event, there is no memory of it, but questions posed may infer information that taints the retention. The other issue is the words used by the witness to describe the situation and the interviewer’s assumptions of what they mean.
Time
Let’s consider the development of a memory beginning with the acquisition phase and the things that can affect the retention and retrieval of details. First, the more amount of time the witness has to make the observation, the more information they will likely be able to retrieve accurately. In one study conducted in 1971 by K. R. Laughery, participants were asked to look at slides of a human face for either 2.5 seconds or eight seconds each. After eight minutes, the participants viewed 150 projected slides of human faces and were asked to score whether these were the four faces they had seen. The research supported the idea that a greater amount of
continued from page 12 exposure time will lead to greater accuracy. Those viewing the slides for eight seconds achieved 58 percent accuracy, while for those viewing the slides for 2.5 seconds, the accuracy rate dropped to 47 percent. Most of the participants said that they focused on the general structure of the face, the eyes, and nose in making their decisions, while very few focused on the hair or ears in making their judgments.
Frequency
Many research studies have confirmed that something experienced many times is going to be recalled much better than something observed only once. Clearly, criminal events are very short in duration and often unexpected, so the accuracy of an observation is likely to diminish. However, seeing a person day after day entering a particular door, the witness would very likely have a much more accurate description of the individual.
Relevant Details
In every observation that we make, we tend to focus on only the most relevant or memorable details of the situation. Most observers will focus their observation on the things that captured their attention. As we might expect, these would be the most unusual or interesting parts of the event that would be much like a TV show and capture our attention. The opposite side is also true that we would less likely remember things that are uninteresting or commonplace during an observation.
The types of details that are important to be accurately retrieved in certain cases can be extremely problematic. For example, estimations of distance, time, and speed are especially difficult for witnesses to accurately estimate. In one of the earliest studies in this area (Marshall 1966/1969), participants were to estimate the speed of a vehicle. They knew in advance they would be asked to judge the speed, yet the estimates ranged from ten to fifty miles per hour, while the car was actually traveling at just twelve miles per hour.
Estimates of time are also difficult, but people generally overestimate the amount of time an event took rather than underestimating it. One hundred forty-one witnesses to a staged classroom event viewed a distraught student attacking a professor. The event, which was videotaped for comparison to the witness accounts, showed that the attack lasted thirty-four seconds. When questioned about the duration of the attack, the witnesses’ response averaged eighty-one seconds, almost three times longer than it took (Buckhout 1977/1975). Other studies confirmed this bias toward a longer estimation. Participants watched a forty-two second film and on average estimated that the film was a minute and a half (Marshall 1966). When there is stress involved in the observation, the witnesses are even more likely to overestimate time frames. While witnesses can also make errors in descriptions including heights and weights, they are not always like the over estimations of time frames.
Stress
Again, not surprisingly, adding stress to the observation of an event makes the ability to recall the situation much more difficult. For the interviewer, this means that the witness’s report should be treated cautiously because of the emotional situation observed. The level of stress may have increased the observer’s notice of the event, or it may have distracted them as they focused on escape or what they needed to do next. This is evident in the necessity of training in highly stressful situations so that the actions of a first responder are instinctual rather than having to be thought out. Reportedly during the battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, some soldiers loaded the rifles repeatedly without ever firing a shot during the stress of battle.
Expectations
Witness observation can also be tainted because of their expectations surrounding an event. Knowing that your mail is delivered by a man each day may in fact taint your observation of a female letter carrier doing the job. In many situations, our memories may be deceived because we see and hear what we expect to hear in a common situation.
Our expectations also may have a cultural basis that alters our observations to meet our particular biases. These expectations may also be based on our past experiences. For example, we might see two people walking but only have a clear view of one whom we recognize as a friend. These two friends are almost always together, so our expectation might be to assign the second person (whom we couldn’t view clearly) as the other friend.
Personal prejudices can also play a role in a witness’s observations. When a person holds certain beliefs or stereotypes a person or group, the tone of an encounter can change dramatically and is often untrue. One has only to look at liberal or conservative reporting on a political event to see how the reporter can taint the event one way or the other. They might comment on how the conversation was portrayed, including tone of voice, delivery, or sequence, choosing clips that support their position.
Certainly knowing an event is going to occur prepares the observer for the observation. Interestingly, research has found that people are better able to describe a face when asked to consider it in terms of personality, rather than simply visual observation of the hair, eyes, nose, or other facial features.
In our next column we will consider the retention and retrieval stages of a witness’s memory. The important thing for the interviewer to remember is that the estimation of time is generally an overestimation while speed and distance are also difficult for a witness to accurately estimate. An observation made under stress can also lead to less detail from the witness.
SHOPLIFTING RESPONSE, REACTION, AND RECOURSE
WHAT’S A RETAILER TO DO?
By Walter Palmer, CFI, CFE, and Jacque Brittain, LPC
Since the earliest days of organized retail, there has been a recognition of the unique exposure that retailers have to crime and loss. We all know that larceny crimes—shoplifting, credit card fraud, refund abuse, and internal theft—cost the retail industry tens of billions of dollars each year and can devastate a retail business.
But shoplifting and other forms of retail theft also impact the industry in ways beyond the monetary loss of stolen merchandise. From the retailer’s perspective there are the costs associated with processing the incident, court appearances, evidence management, and other related expenses such as the costs associated with surveillance and security equipment, merchandise protection tools, and technology resources. Looking deeper there are negative impacts due to lost sales, out-of-stocks, and merchandise replenishment. All of these can have substantial impact on the retailer’s bottom line—and the prices paid by the retail customer.
Historically, society has provided retailers with tools to help control those losses. For example, each state has statutory provisions typically referred to as “merchant protection statutes” that provide retail organizations with extraordinary powers to detain possible shoplifters in a manner that’s not available to the typical citizen and also afford significant protection to the retailer against liability.
The entire process of prosecuting a shoplifter can be very expensive from a community standpoint as well, ultimately costing thousands of dollars per incident. From the time of arrest, through the court system, and up to the point that a decision on guilt or innocence is determined, extensive financial and human resources are dedicated to ensure a fair and just process. If found guilty, the burden of public responsibility shifts to the management of the criminal sentence, up to and including incarceration for more serious criminal offenses.
So retail theft is costing all of us money—a lot of money. For anyone paying attention, that should really come as no surprise. The only true constant has been that the theft problem is not going away. The nature of retail theft may have evolved with the progressive nature of the retail culture and the needs, norms, and values of an evolving society. But the problem itself persists and will likely endure as long retailers open their doors for business.
The Debate over Response
How we respond to the problem of shoplifting has also shown considerable signs of change. Over the past fifteen to twenty years, there have been significant trends related to retail theft, shoplifting, police response, and the views of the criminal justice system that are causing significant disruption and confusion as to the manner in which shoplifting and related crimes are dealt with. These developments have often been contradictory to each other, influencing how they’re handled from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, how they’re viewed in the eyes of lawmakers, and even how they’re managed from retailer to retailer.
As budgets are squeezed and resources stretched, conflicts over
the best way to handle this criminal behavior has only continued to escalate. In the past few years, there has been an increasing chorus of criticism of big box retail for what is being perceived as an “overuse” of police resources. With criticisms emerging in large cities and small towns, the story is typically told by citing statistics on how many police responses are made to a particular retail outlet for issues ranging from shoplifting to various other crimes and complaints.
In some instances, businesses have been threatened with fines or the intent to declare the retailer as a public nuisance due to the frequency of police calls made to deal with shoplifting and other criminal incidents. In other situations, police have asserted that they will not respond to theft incidents under a predetermined dollar amount. There are even those jurisdictions that have announced they simply won’t respond to shoplifting incidents at all, believing that police resources are better spent by focusing on “more serious crimes” other than those that cost retail companies tens of billions of dollars each and every year.
For example, in March of 2018 Chief Erika Shields of the Atlanta Police Department announced that officers will no longer be responding to shoplifting calls at department stores. “You can only do so much,” said Chief Shields. “We are going to change how we handle shoplifting calls, and primarily, for the most part, we will
not be responding to them. Every time we make a shoplifting arrest, that officer is out of service for sixty to ninety minutes. It’s not acceptable.”
While most departments work well with their retail partners, critics
assert that retail companies in question either don’t take crime seriously or don’t want to spend the money necessary to prevent it. Rather, they are relying on public Erika Shields services and the taxpayers’ dime to handle what could be prevented or mitigated. Further, there is a lack of understanding—or a lack of empathy—for the role that retail theft plays as a “gateway” crime to more serious offenses such as drug crimes and violent crimes, which only further impacts reaction and response.
State Felony Threshold Changes. Since 2001, at least thirty-five states have raised their felony theft thresholds—the value of stolen money
or goods above which prosecutors may charge theft offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanors. This comes at a time when the retail community is seeing a rise in organized retail crime (ORC) where the potential financial gain is significant compared with the reduced risk of meaningful criminal sanctions.
“There are clearly people that should be in jail who are now free due to the new legislation,” said Loren Naiman, formerly with the Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. “Theft is now a consequence-free crime, resulting in an increase in property crimes in Los Angeles by almost 10 percent since these changes have taken effect.”
In today’s dynamic and competitive environment where the wants and needs of the customer remains our greatest priority, there needs to be a balance between protecting merchandise and ensuring our products are available and accessible to the customer.
Decriminalization and Reduction of Sanctions for Larceny
When it comes to controlling crime, one of society’s aims is to deter bad behavior through the use of criminal sanctions. In fact, deterrence theory could be considered the bedrock of almost any criminal code. According to the National Institute of Justice—the research, development, and evaluation agency of the US Department of Justice—a primary means to deter crime is to increase the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
While the legislative branch and criminal justice system have long recognized the extreme exposure that retailers have to theft, there is strong sentiment within the industry that a weakening of criminal sanctions has occurred and will, at least in theory, drive higher rates of offending and loss. These changes have largely been driven by budget concerns in the public sector and the sense that law enforcement agencies and the courts are beyond capacity, thus necessitating either increased funding or a reduction in the number of offenders being referred, prosecuted, and incarcerated.
Local Police Response Thresholds. On an informal basis, many law enforcement agencies have created a de facto reduction in criminal sanctions for shoplifters by establishing dollar thresholds for when they will respond to a shoplifting case. While this does not necessarily prohibit the retailer from pursuing criminal prosecution, it makes it much more cumbersome and also removes the immediate sanction and deterrence from the equation.
Prop 47. Proposition 47, the ballot initiative passed by California voters in 2014, has become somewhat of a “rallying cry” in the retail loss prevention industry regarding the perceived softening on shoplifting, organized retail crime, and retail fraud. It reduces certain drug possession felonies to misdemeanors. It also requires misdemeanor sentencing for petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks when the amount involved is $950 or less, including any and all repeat offenses.
“It’s basically decriminalized shoplifting and theft, making it a low-risk/high-reward proposition,” said Aaron Moreno, senior director of government relations for the California Grocers Association. “Thieves are more brazen, putting retail workers in danger.”
Loren Naiman
“Ban the Box” Initiatives. Nationwide, over 150 cities and counties have adopted what is widely known as “ban the box” where employers are restricted in their consideration of criminal convictions in the hiring decision process. Ten states have also mandated the removal of conviction history questions from job applications.
“The purpose of the ‘ban the box’ initiative is to allow people with a conviction history to go through the interview process and be considered based on their qualifications rather than their conviction history,” said Sandra Johnson with California-based Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and part of the campaign
behind the “ban the box” initiative. “I felt held hostage by my past and wanted a fair chance to be considered without being judged based on my conviction, getting a job so that I could move forward.”
While not directly related to the issue of retail theft, many retailers feel this trend also impacts the perception of decriminalization of a wide range of offenses and removes one more tool for retailers to control loss. Further, it represents an additional weakening of deterrence for offending.
Sandra Johnson
Increased Violence and ORC Activity
Over the last several years, every gathering of loss prevention practitioners has ended up with a significant focus on violence in the retail workplace. These concerns include traditional workplace violence issues, increases in armed robberies, and active-shooter incidents. But the major point of discussion involves increased levels of violence, threats of violence, intimidation, and use of weapons by shoplifters.
“Different groups are now getting more involved in theft, including a number of gangs and other felons that have habitually been involved in more violent crimes,” added Bill Williams, formerly with the Los Angeles Police Department. “In California, following the passage of Proposition 47 they’ve turned to shoplifting because the penalties are so much less.”
Whether involving ORC incidents or individual shoplifters, these issues seem to span the entire spectrum from big box to specialty retailers. This trend continues despite attempts by retailers and loss prevention to reduce and mitigate violence by changes in policies and procedures.
Bill Williams
The Drug Crisis and Its Impact on Retail
There’s no denying that the US is facing an opioid abuse epidemic, and the impacts of that are being felt by retailers in many ways, but opioids are only one class of drug in play. For instance, the widespread use of methamphetamine (meth) accept gift cards as payment in lieu of cash. While gift cards can be sold at physical locations, such as pawn shops and other outlets, online sales sites currently provide an easy way for thieves to convert the cards to cash at an 85 to 90 percent return.
State Senator Richard Briggs of Tennessee reported a direct connection between gift cards and drug overdoses based on reports received in his home state. Retail theft is prevalent in Tennessee, with Knoxville reportedly ranking first in
has resulted in many states adopting stringent requirements for retailers regarding the handling of products that are components or precursors to meth, such as Sudafed and Advil Cold and Sinus even though they are officially over-the-counter medications. Some are now criticizing retailers because there is a sense that addicts are turning to retail theft to fund their habits. Many retailers would agree as they have long felt the impact of shoplifting due to drug dependency. But a Pennsylvania judge recently said that a major retailer was “part of the problem” because of its return policy and that retailers are not doing enough to combat the issue.
There are now even reports of a link between gift card issues and the opioid epidemic, with addicts stating that drug dealers will often the nation per capita for card abuse and theft. In Knox County, he revealed that police linked sixteen of nineteen overdoses to the sale of gift cards during a one-month period in 2017. In the city of Knoxville, police also tracked eighty-three to ninety-eight overdoses to gift cards during a three-month period.
“It would be no different than if there was a rock lying there, and if you lifted it up, and this horrible smell came out, and this monster came out,” said Senator Briggs. Richard Briggs “We had no idea that the organized retail theft was related so intimately with the opiate and drug trade in general in Appalachia.”
These criticisms add to the sense of frustration in the retail industry. It seems that some want retailers to solve a societal issue that is not of their own making without any regard to the competitive nature of their core businesses and the need to skew their policies to favor of their legitimate, honest customers who make up the vast majority of their businesses, while taking away many of the criminal sanctions or police response that would be expected historically.
The Search for Alternative Solutions
Retail companies are in business to sell merchandise—not to catch shoplifters. Naturally, these businesses would much rather avoid theft in their stores and have taken many steps and allocated tremendous resources toward these efforts. In today’s dynamic and competitive environment where the wants and needs of the customer remains our greatest priority, there needs to be a balance between protecting merchandise and ensuring our products are available
and accessible to the customer. Brand, image, price, quality, convenience, and service are hallmarks that drive the success of every company, and that can’t and won’t change if the company hopes to remain in business.
Over the past several decades, retail has made significant changes in response to shoplifters and other forms of retail crime. First and foremost, today’s retail companies have stressed deterrence as a primary response to theft, focusing on customer service, employee training and awareness, advanced prevention tools, cutting-edge technology, and similar measures to dissuade the theft problem. When shoplifting does occur, increased implementation of “no chase” and “no touch” policies and a willingness to let violent shoplifters go rather than attempt to physically detain them has become a common industry practice.
Yet despite ongoing efforts to deter shoplifting, the problem persists. In fact, with the lack of police response and a reduction in the consequences for stealing, the doors have opened to a more persistent problem and the potential for a more volatile criminal element. This leaves retailers searching for new and better ways to respond to protect their products, their customers, their employees, and their businesses.
In response to the reduction in criminal sanctions, the lack of police response, and the criticism that
retailers may be overutilizing public resources, retailers have sought out alternative programs to provide sanctions for shoplifting and control the huge financial impact on the retail industry. These include the use of civil demand programs, which have statutory endorsement in the majority of states, and the recent introduction of “restorative justice” programs.
As retailers face the many challenges of an evolving society, we must also continue to search for the best and most productive solutions to all the needs of the business. This requires an ongoing effort to challenge ourselves and our decisions to ensure that we provide the best possible outcomes.
Civil Recovery Programs
The use of civil recovery has been widely supported in the retail loss prevention industry for over thirty years, and all states have provided statutory provisions for these programs. Civil recovery laws make any person who unlawfully steals or tries to steal merchandise liable to the merchant. In simple language, this means that a shoplifter can be financially penalized by a merchant for stealing or attempting to steal from them—even if the merchandise is recovered.
These laws do not in any way prohibit a merchant from taking additional legal action against the offender, such as turning them over to police or pursuing prosecution for the crime. They are designed to impose financial penalties on shoplifters to offset costs directly associated with the tools and personnel required to defend against shoplifting and related crime—a practice that would appear fair and reasonable.
“Civil recovery is a tried and true process backed by statutes that are state-specific. These programs, when managed with an ethical and transparent focus, address recidivism while helping a company’s bottom line,” stated Stuart Levine, CEO of The Zellman Group.
Maintaining a civil recovery program with processes that are uniform and fair from beginning to end is paramount. For example, high-dollar demands and Stuart Levine added fees are often at the root of legal inquiries. Retailers in partnership with their service providers should set consistent standards within established statutory guidelines—but not necessarily at the maximum penalty allowed by the state.
Further, the process, including civil demand notices, letters, calls, and all follow-up, should be inscrutable and fully defensible based on specific state statutes. There are also ancillary laws designed to protect consumers, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring compliance to the requirements of legislation such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) or Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Violation of these laws are an additional source of initial accusation and potential legal action, which ultimately negatively impact civil recovery for merchants.
Nevertheless, criticisms routinely appear in mainstream media with accusations of unfairness even though these programs have a solid legal foundation, and many personal defense attorneys are prospecting this area for potential lawsuits. As a result, some retailers have pulled back on their use of civil recovery.
Restorative Justice Programs
Restorative justice programs were intended to create a process where first-time shoplifting offenders were offered an opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution. Rather than incurring the significant time and expense to all parties involved when a shoplifter is apprehended—including those the offender would incur when faced with penalties imposed by the criminal justice system—an alternative solution was offered with the idea that there were benefits for the offender, the company, and the community at-large.
Taking a page from the criminal justice system’s traditional restorative justice diversion program, participants had to be first-time offenders and not involved in organized retail crime. If eligible, offenders were educated about the program and offered the choice to participate in and pay for the educational program or refuse the opportunity and opt instead to follow the traditional path of criminal prosecution and have their day in court. Those who signed up completed an online course intended to make them examine why they shoplifted, and why it’s a bad choice. They paid restitution for the thefts and footed the bill for the courses.
The initial response to these programs was largely positive with both retailers and police agencies where implemented. Participating retailers cut their calls to police in half, saving significant resources for local communities. Repeat shoplifting offenses for those going through the programs were less than 5 percent. Intended to create a process where offenders can learn from victims and the community to make amends, restorative justice programs were meant to establish a cooperative rather than adversarial process—one intended to help make things right, show perpetrators the impact that their crimes can have, and take the steps to see that the behavior doesn’t happen again.
However, while some prosecutors and police departments have applauded the implementation of restorative justice programs in the retail sector, others have taken great exception and umbrage. In 2015, a suit brought by the San Francisco City
Attorney asserted that the tactics used by Corrective Education Company (CEC), one of the companies that were administering restorative justice programs, were illegal, and the court issued a permanent injunction against CEC in California. “We should all be concerned about privatizing our justice system,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, adding that the company was “enriching itself on the backs of others, and many of the people they prey upon have limited means and are just barely getting by.”
In Minnesota, the legislature is considering a bill that would make retail restorative justice programs illegal in the state. In Indiana, the State Attorney General’s office issued an opinion that the CEC program was “open to abuse” and should be illegal. This has resulted in most retailers suspending their restorative justice platforms, ceasing to provide first-time shoplifters with the option of going through the program.
Dennis Herrera
So What’s a Retailer to Do?
If the penalties for shoplifting are reduced and the criminal justice system refuses to handle cases or complains about the volume, but at the same time don’t want retailers taking actions into their own hands through the use civil penalties, how are retailers supposed to control the issue especially in light of the current opioid crisis and the belief that shoplifting activity is feeding into the problem?
If resources are so stretched that law enforcement doesn’t have the manpower to respond to legitimate crimes taking place in retail stores—to the point that the stores are being threatened with charges of being labeled a “public nuisance” based on their response to those crimes—how are retailers expected to respond?
Some critics claim that retail companies either don’t take crime seriously or don’t want to spend the money necessary to prevent it. Then other critics claim that businesses like retail are too tough on those previously convicted of criminal offenses and should make hiring decisions without regard for their criminal history.
On top of all of this, throw in the perceived issue that violence and threats are on the rise in the retail sector, and it is fair to ask, “What is a retailer to do?” As the climate evolves, the concerns are mounting, leaving us with important questions that are lacking feasible and/or manageable answers.
Moving Forward
As retailers face the many challenges of an evolving society, we must also continue to search for the best and most productive solutions to all the
LM Tag™ with SONR™ sends notifications of activity or alarms to the separate Echo Box. with
The new LM Tag™ with SONR™ alarms when a product is concealed and adds another layer of protection by sending notifications of activity or alarms to the SONR Echo Box.
• Easy to apply and use
• No power cables or wires
• Can connect to in-store CCTV or communication systems
Find out how LM Tag with SONR can protect your merchandise and increase sales!
Call us at 800.422.2547 or visit www.siffron.com
needs of the business. This requires an ongoing effort to challenge ourselves and our decisions to ensure that we provide the best possible outcomes. When it comes to theft and related retail crimes, we must always look for internal solutions to the many concerns on our plates. We must also work with community leaders, legislators, and law enforcement, jointly communicating our thoughts and ideas while pursuing effective and reasonable answers to the many questions that we face.
This is a shared responsibility requiring the cooperation and support of everyone involved. Communication is important, but so is perspective. We aren’t referring to a youngster stealing baseball cards and bubble gum. This is a multibillion-dollar problem that is only getting more serious—and more dangerous—as we move forward.
Retailers are in business to sell their products and turn a profit. Serving the retail customer is our primary responsibility. We invite the public into our stores, present our products in a way that is attractive, desirable, and convenient to our customers, and persistently look for ways to best serve those customers, meet their needs, and keep them coming back. But among the wave of valuable customers that enter our stores every day, we can neither avoid nor ignore those who are intent on malicious actions that threaten the retailer’s bottom-line—and even more importantly, threaten the safety of customers and front-line staff. It’s something that is an unavoidable aspect of the business and in many ways beyond our control.
There remains a fine but clear line between protection and service. There is a responsibility to attempt to manage those guests with less-than-pure intentions and those making poor decisions. Our first desire is to control theft through prevention and deterrence, but hard-core, repeat, and violent offenders need to be dealt with appropriately. All of this must be accomplished while remaining respectful to the needs and perceptions of our customers and maintaining the public trust.
Retail businesses serve and support our communities. They strengthen local economies by offering essential products, providing jobs, generating tax revenues, and championing community projects. The burden of dealing with all these concerns shouldn’t simply fall on the shoulders of our retail community. Retailers are not “the bad guy” in this equation.
So what’s a retailer to do? Together we need to find the answers.
WALTER E. PALMER, CFI, CFE, is the practice leader for EPIC Integrated Risk Solutions where he leads their consulting, training, and research efforts for the LP industry. He has over 35 years of experience in retail LP and is a frequent speaker at industry conferences around the globe and regular contributor to LP Magazine. He serves on the advisory boards for the International Association of Interviewers and the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention. He can be reached at walter.palmer@epicbrokers.com.
JACQUE BRITTAIN, LPC, is editorial director for LP Magazine. Prior to joining the magazine, he was director of learning design and certification for Learn It Solutions, where he helped coordinate and write the online coursework for the Loss Prevention Foundation’s LPC and LPQ certifications. Earlier in his career, Brittain was vice president of operations for one of the largest executive recruiting firms in the LP industry. He can be reached at JacB@LPportal.com.
Sign up Now to Support LP Education
Your participation in the 2019 Swing for Certifi cation golf tournament at the NRF Protect conference benefi ts the Bob MacLea scholarships for loss prevention and asset protection professionals who want to advance their careers by obtaining their LPQ or LPC certifi cations. Proceeds will also benefi t the Loss Prevention Benevolent Fund.
Hosted by the Loss Prevention Foundation for the second year, the tournament takes place at Coyote Hills Golf Club in Fullerton, CA, on June 10 prior to the start of the NRF Protect conference. The event begins at 1:00 p.m. with lunch and a shotgun start. Prizes and awards will be handed out at a food and cocktail reception following golf.
June 10, 2019
Registration begins at 11:00 a.m. Lunch on all carts Shotgun start 1:00 p.m.
Prize Opportunities
• Closest to the pin • Longest drive • Beat the pro • Golf cannon • Post-golf raffl e
PLATINUM
GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
BEVERAGE CART
LUNCH
GOLF CANNON POST-GOLF RECEPTION
BEAT THE PRO
Retailers Register Today
All retailers are urged to register early as this event is sure to sell out.To register, go to
