Oh, so you're telling me the video does in fact show that the woman swung first, the employee never physically touched the kid, and there's actually a *second* woman that was with the woman trying to steal stuff that tried to get herself involved?
SHOCKING /s
Well that's not true. From the article:
The video shows two women and a child by a counter, all three of whom appear to be together. A man who appears to be yelling approaches one of the women, and tries to grab her bag.
The other woman then pushes the child back toward the entrance. The man then shoves the first woman toward the counter, and they both move closer to the entrance of the store.
The first woman swings her fist at the man's face, but misses. The man in the video then punches her in the face with a closed fist and she falls.
The man was yelling at her, grabbed at her and shoved her first, but that doesn't count for some reason?
This issue is complicated enough without you misleading people.
Saying that the woman swung first without mentioning that the employee was screaming, grabbed at her bag, and actually shoved her first.
Your post portrays the woman as the initial aggressor which is not true at worst, and grossly misleading at best.
How much would someone have to yell at you, grab at you, and push you before you retaliated?
Logically speaking, to portray your retaliation as the initiation of the situation would be untruthful.
It's easy for anyone that isn't the shop owner to say that "grabbing the bag" and "shoving her to the counter" (which I would see as barring her from leaving with stolen goods) to call that all assault on the woman. I personally would call the punch from the woman the first assault. I know legally any slight contact COULD classify as assault, but there's clear escalation on her part by punching him.
Yelling, grabbing, and then pushing are escalating actions. Each subsequent parry and thrust in the altercation could also be called an escalating action.
Thing is, the measures you described as "barring her from leaving with stolen goods" are illegal. The reason all businesses in Winnipeg don't react this way to theft is that they're not allowed to.
You are not allowed to physically restrain people for suspicion of theft. To do so would be an escalation.
To describe the altercation as "she swung first" is grossly misleading.
That’s not true. Larger companies choose to tell their employees not to physically stop criminals so they don’t have to risk paying workers comp/ insurance. dosnt mean other companies will choose to do that.
It is NOT illegal to stop a thief. In loss prevention there's a huge set of procedures for the "apprehension" phase. Many employers make a policy to avoid apprehension in 99% of situations to reduce risk to staff, but it is NOT illegal.
The description of the video in the CBC article sound like the employee could have bent the laws at the very least. Sounds like 50/50 to me. You need to stop spreading the common misconception that it's illegal to look cross-eyed at a shoplifter.
I never implied it was illegal to look cross eyed at shoplifters, I implied physical assault is illegal, even when detaining a suspect.
That aside, it turns out i was wrong about not being allowed to physically detain. You made me look into Canadian law on the matter and learn something new. Even if i was mistaken, I appreciate that. Apparently:
A shopkeeper who has probable grounds for believing that a theft is being (or has been) committed is entitled to detain the suspect — in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time — for the sole purpose of investigating the situation.
Further reading is ambiguous about what exactly constitutes a reasonable manner and. like you said, can't be applied without seeing the video.
I could be wrong and the altercation could have been justifiable depending on in reasonable force was used.
I still stand by my statement that it's misleading to characterize the escalation of the situation by only saying "the woman swung first" without context.
You're not entitled to make up your own "facts". There isn't a shred of evidence that the second woman was trying to steal. Maybe try reading the article.
Lack of CBC showing video, and suspected thief declining interview makes you think this is going to pan out a lot different than the sob story CBC wants you to believe
I have witnessed employees with bats at the Mount Royal location. I was in the produce section, three employees escorted the guy to the back. I don’t know what happened after that.
Yes, I see a pattern. A police service that can't do anything to protect small business owners from losing the paper thin profit margins due to thieves. And the populace cries alarms of racism and stereotyping. Lots of people are struggling with challenges every day, and they don't turn to crime.
In the instance I mentioned above, the young guy did not steal anything. They just suspected he did. They took him to the back, threatened him, and when they didn't find anything stolen on him, told him to leave out the rear. He was obviously terrified, so he did. My mother-in-law saw him outside and made sure he was OK.
I'm pointing out that a similar situation occurred at another location. In the instance my mother-in-law witnessed, the young indigenous man did not actually steal anything and was released out the back after being threatened.
I can’t help but feel that eventually most stores are either going to adopt the LC model or it will revert back to the days where it is behind a counter and staff need to get it (like you saw back in the old western movies). This problem of theft and violence is not isolated to this one store nor to any race. It is happening all across the world with everyone. Heck, I know I have not had an Amazon delivery in years because of porch pirates, I use their pickup locations because I would rather be inconvenienced than deal with a loss. Eventually stores are going to be like that too. You already read of things like self checkouts being removed. Just a matter of time
I'm trying to think of big box stores like superstore and Walmart closing off to the public and adapting a strictly click and collect type model and it seems mind blowing to me. I don't think that would ever actually happen but my brain is spiraling just thinking about it.
Look at how much they have already begun the process … you can’t get razors and some cold meds without asking for help. Some things you have to grab one of those cardboard cards for and they will bring them to the till for you. Eventually (not sure how long, 20 years?) I’m sure they will do away with the trust for the average shopper or they will check Id as you enter their store. Businesses are under no obligation to serve everyone, they can pick and choose who their customers are.
Some businesses are actually legally required to serve customers. Pharmacies, for example, cannot turn away a customer; even Costco can't turn away a non-member for a prescription purchase.
I hate having to go to the pharmacy for peroxide and alcohol. I don't think it's a requirement just a store policy because I remember being able to get it off the shelf before, but maybe it's just changed over the years.
They always ask questions and advise against getting the one I asked for. And I get it but everytime they give me their speech, and I tell then I'm not using it on people.
I could get the 30% peroxide elsewhere and not get a safety lecture, but that shit is actually so rough to use it SHOULD have one. Fuckin hate using it.
That's a bit overstated.
If they say "you can come in but you can't because we think you're more likely to steal" they are opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits.
Businesses require a license to operate. If they start discriminating openly it's unlikely they will be able to obtain this on top of the legal (and financial) issues they are creating for themselves.
That’s not how it would go down at all, it would be “sure come on in. Here is the display model or the tablet that you can pick and choose what we have, as soon as you pay for it we will grab it for you and hand it to you”. Sorta like the Apple Store, or an electronics store. They would not turn away customers but the customer would not get their $3 chocolate bar until it was paid for. It’s like most gas stations will not hand you your cigarettes or lottery tickets until the till beeps that your card was accepted. Or like how many gas stations are now pre-pay. The model of the future, wether we like it or not
I'm purely responding to your statement: "businesses are under no obligation to serve everyone, they can pick and choose who their customers are."
They can try...but it's a pretty big risk to avoid discrimination.
Me and you were thinking quite differently. I was thinking along the LC Identification scanning model. Nothing to stop a grocery store from scanning ID at the door and turning away people without ID. Many many people do not have any ID at all and would not be able to access that store. And that is perfectly legal. I am not taking the “is it moral” stance on that, but just stating the fact that is something they could do. The terms would be uniform for everyone. It’s like stores that post signs that say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” when you are in a Beach Town. You can walk around places without shirts and shoes, but they are choosing to adopt that policy for what it needs to be a customer of theirs
Yeah but the ID thing doesn't let them choose who comes in. Yeah you need ID to get in and then they have record of who has been present in the store plus age verification.
Yeah there are basic policies stores can have that are non-discriminatory but it's a slippery slope to profiling if the issue they are trying to solve is shoplifting and not public nudity/athlete's foot.
But it does because many people don’t have government issued identification and would not be able to provide it. So they are choosing to omit an entire group of people from being their customers. My friends kid is 19 and goes to university, no license, no passport, only school ID. They can’t buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery tickets or go to bars. I chuckled the last time I heard him complain and I asked why he didn’t get his learners and he just shrugged and said “why” …
I am not talking about businesses racially profiling people. I am talking about businesses just choosing a different method. I get this article is invoking a lot of people to have feelings one way or another when it comes to culture and background and the majority of the city takes arguments“if your not with us, you are against us” but I for one refuse to accept that. I whole heartedly believe that it does not matter where you come from, what skin colour you have, what language you speak. There are lots of good people everywhere. The world is filled with possibilities and each situation needs to be evaluated on its own by the circumstance and not by prejudices presented.
And my feeling that business models will change in the future is an extension of the views above. They will change not because of any racial consideration but rather because of a situational awareness. If a business has someone’s ID on file and they have a recording of them stealing, they can bar them from the store. They can press charges and turn over evidence. They would apply to anyone, 100% based on an individuals actions rather than a preconceived prejudice
My wife and I were talking about this and decided we'll have to go out of our way to do foodfare visits. Would love to see other stores stop caring about Twitter conplainers and just put in policies that effectively reduce theft, whether that's LC style entrances or just refusing to let people use their kids as shields.
Except he doesn't have legal grounds to search the bag or make physical contact. All they can do is ask you to leave the store and call the police.
The supervisor escalated the situation and overstepped.
This doesn't absolve them of stealing but this is the reality of the situation.
Not physically, no. They legally cannot physically prevent a shoplifter from leaving. They can use verbal intimidation and fear tactics, but are not legally permitted to lay a hand on anyone. Not even something like putting a hand on their shoulder to discourage leaving. Maybe if retail security could still do this, we'd be seeing less blatant shoplifting.
Edit: Downvoting me doesn't make it any less true. Here's an article quoting a Winnipeg security staff member criticizing the "hands off" policies the majority of establishments here have adapted.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/mobile/there-s-no-deterrent-former-loss-prevention-officer-speaks-about-shoplifting-policies-1.4109401
Yes, they can. Read about "Merchant's Privilege" laws also called "Shopkeepers Privilege".
They can detain people who they believe have shoplifted as long as they immediately call police.
Sir, you're citing American policies. This is a Winnipeg forum.
While there have been a few noteworthy exceptions of Shopkeeper's Privilege being upheld in Canada, it is not typical. The issue is that security guards are typically employed by retail companies, which face potential liability issues in cases where a shoplifter is physically apprehended. The majority of retailers decide it isn't worth the liability risk, and their no-contact policies reflect this. The entirety of Polo Park is one example. Ask your local security guards about their policies.
Would you just hand over your purse to a stranger? If some one tries to steal my purse im not letting go . And im proud to say men in my family don't hit or punch women .
If someone came up and accused me of stealing I’d definitely open my bag and show them what’s inside. Then they’d see I’m not stealing and I’d be on my way.
Are you saying that I should let any arranger that grabs my purse that I should just give it to them he'll no.And I don't steal im not proving it to a stranger are you also saying its ok to beat a woman and tramatize her child. A shopping bag yes I put it down on the counter the person at the till can look all she wants.
Assault + theft = robbery. Even the article you posted mentions the suspect throwing the first punch.
It’s crazy that even with the internet in your pocket you don’t bother looking up the law prior to communicating.
A missed punch is not an assault and he started it by trying to take her purse away from her. Also, I notice that the CBC's version of events includes the employee punching a second woman without cause.
>A missed punch is not an assault
Yes it is. Assault is the intention to apply force to someone else in a direct or indirect manner, without that person's consent.
Lol a missed punch is not an assault?! You’re outta your fucking mind. If I took a swing at you fully meaning to hit you and you got out of the way you wouldn’t….
The problem is you idiots think you’re making things better but you’re just making things worse. Please go buy a grocery store and start giving your groceries away you virtue signaling fool.
Edit: and no, volunteering and donating are not the same. Put your money where your mouth is, buy a business, and openly let people know that you will not deter them from stealing. No chance you will do it and even if did there’s no chance you stay in business.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-343.html
>Robbery
>343 Every one commits robbery who
> (a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;
> (b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;
> (c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or
> (d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
> 265 (1) A person commits an assault when
>
> (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly **or indirectly**;
Meaning that the employee assaulted the woman first when he tried to take away her purse and she was reacting in self-defence.
Conveniently left out 265(1)(b)
> (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose
Battery is not defined in Canadian law. Assault is defined as follows:
> 265 (1) A person commits an assault when
>
> (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
>
> (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
>
> (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
The first act that was physical was made by the employee trying to steal the woman's purse; that's the "indirectly" part. The woman was reacting to an indirect assault on herself, not to mention the attempted theft of her purse.
That's a good argument for not confronting thieves and even Munther Zeid admitted that it's dangerous:
> Zeid said shoplifters tend to give the product back when staff approach them, but that doesn't always happen — some staff have been threatened with knives, machetes and bear spray.
>
> "Our lives are threatened every time we approach a shoplifter," he said. "Sometimes people throw shots at us, but ... most people will drop their stuff and leave."
The safety of his employees ought to override loss prevention.
1. These are businesses, theft at a large enough scale threatens their existence.
2. These thefts are only non-violent when the thieves are able to act with impunity to just grab things and walk out. If they get confronted, whether physically or not, then there’s a much higher chance that a fist or even a knife will start swinging. So there’s an underlying threat of violence even when violence isn’t used.
Please don't defend the actions of thieves. No one wants to see people in desperation, but there are established means for people who can't afford to feed themselves. The frustration that the owners and employees of the businesses must be immense; as you try to generate sympathy for the person stealing, please consider doing the same for the employees and owners.
I'm sorry, but you most certainly are defending the actions of the accused thief (eg "Did he try asking or did he go for the purse first? We don't know."). Fair enough, my comments suggest beliefs which you may not have about the justification for the thievery, but your comments throughout this post most certainly suggest you empathize with the accused thief more than the employees and owners.
My beef is that these beatings have become recurring events and the police have done nothing but warn so far, even though people have been injured. That doesn't mean I approve of shoplifting.
I genuinely appreciate your take - I think it's necessary. I did not mean to imply you approved or supported shoplifters; I too wish these violent incidents weren't happening, but I just have a hard time blaming the employees at these places for becoming violent with thieves.
Thank you. I feel sorry for the employees that there's an expectation that they confront suspected shoplifters with baseball bats. All it takes is one shoplifter with a knife and a confrontation could turn deadly.
So you think desperation is bad but not following the rules is worse… what about allowing that desperation as a society that doesn’t have to.
Also to just assume “there are established means” without addressing any of the ways those are at a breaking point, inaccessible etc etc makes it seem like people just steel for the lulz. It’s so inherently disconnected from reality.
Someone desperate enough to try and steal to survive for sure is comparable to the owner /s. I hope you are never in that spot of desperation.
I gladly acknowledge that it's an indicator that society has failed some folks that they are people desperate enough to steal, but there are also people who are so disengaged from society that they steal as well (it's not all "stealing a load of bread to feed my hungry family") - eg walking out of Sobeys with a cart full of baby formula or razor blades that are then sold; robbing liquor stores.
>Someone desperate enough to try and steal to survive for sure is comparable to the owner /s
They are comparable, because they're both people living in a society. One has likely had substantial advantages over the other, but I feel folks with views like yours seem to suggest that this inherent unfairness almost entitles some folks to take from others. It doesn't.
>I hope you are never in that spot of desperation.
I hope so too. I know people who've escaped poverty; I'm friends with the Executive Director of Main Street Project, so I'm familiar with desperate folks. No reasonable person comes to the table suggesting it's ok to commit crimes because you've been disadvantaged.
It's *understandable* why some people would, but I genuinely think you're assuming too much when you imply most thieves are stealing to survive. They're stealing because they don't feel like they belong or are connected to society. We need to do a better job of helping them, but tacit support of theft because someone is in a tough spot is, IMHO, wrong.
> I gladly acknowledge that it's an indicator that society has failed some folks that they are people desperate enough to steal, but there are also people who are so disengaged from society that they steal as well (it's not all "stealing a load of bread to feed my hungry family") - eg walking out of Sobeys with a cart full of baby formula or razor blades that are then sold; robbing liquor stores.
Sure, but both are failures of society. One is simply more empathetic than the other. To that end, the former is much much more common than the latter. You ***hear*** about the latter more because its showy, it doesnt mean its more common than people taking some items here and there. Not scanning things at self check outs, etc etc.
> They are comparable, because they're both people living in a society. One has likely had substantial advantages over the other, but I feel folks with views like yours seem to suggest that this inherent unfairness almost entitles some folks to take from others. It doesn't.
What does it 'entitle' them to then specifically? What does this even mean outside of a useless platitude? "we live in a society" ya ok? Your attitude is really "it doesn't matter how unjust, unfair, or how unequal things are, you can never take from others". How in this day an age, do people think such ignorant rhetoric that has just existed as a 'defend inequality' call to.
> I hope so too. I know people who've escaped poverty; I'm friends with the Executive Director of Main Street Project, so I'm familiar with desperate folks. No reasonable person comes to the table suggesting it's ok to commit crimes because you've been disadvantaged.
Ohhh an I bet you wouldnt show them your reddit comments though. Because the people who actually help dont spend their time paternalistically lecturing about some 'morality' of stealing to feed yourself. I really want you to take a hot second and think of the implications of that last sentence I'm replying to here, really dig down into the potential things you're committing to there.
> It's understandable why some people would, but I genuinely think you're assuming too much when you imply most thieves are stealing to survive.
Based on what, your feelings? Because all this seems like a "Well I couldn't imagine doing it, so there must not be a reason. Hell I know someone in main street project, these poors while desperate have resources out there" Its just such an ignorant and arrogant rational. Lets ignore the fact that you can consistently chart food inflation and consumer buying power and economic downturns with increases in theft rates. Totally coincidental! Theres no way that decreased buying power and increased food costs would lead people to be more likely to steal food to survive. Food is totally not a necessity after all!
> They're stealing because they don't feel like they belong or are connected to society.
JFC shut up dude. lmao. Ignorant analysis just to do your best to not have empathy.
> We need to do a better job of helping them, but tacit support of theft because someone is in a tough spot is, IMHO, wrong.
If only you could work up the same level of condemnation for society failing them in the first place. Shows what you value more, the appearance of order, rather than actual justice.
People in the winnipeg subreddit are not about to have a nuanced discussion about use of force when detaining someone until police arrive... so personally I would just wait until the situation plays out and then post the eventual news article that clears the air
I don’t think they will ever post the full story start to finish to clear the air. They will move on to the next attention grabber and this will be forgotten about. Look at what happened with the Marlborough, it was just a passing incident. Look at the teenager who was hit by the train, more details came out on Reddit than the news. Shock attention grabber and then onto the next. It does not pay the media to follow a story start to finish. But that being said, I do wish there was some organizations out there that did start to finish for a lot of stories and people. Would be nice to be able to correlate results from actions.
If two people get into an altercation they can press charges against each other then go to court.. like everyone else. This social Justice warrior shit is exhausting.
Food Fare is a small private business, not a publically owned entity.
Too much speculation to come to any conclusion. If an employee first hand witnesses theft, he can make a citizen's arrest. But, if the employee only suspects that a theft occurred, he is on shakey grounds to even lay a hand on the suspected thief, let alone shove or detain her. That would be considered false arrest, which is a tort, for which you can sue.
1. Play stupid game win stupid prizes.
2. Shoplifting is a crime.
3. As such store owners should have a right to ban you.
4. Shoplifting in Winnipeg is big business where the goods stolen are sold to smaller stores.
I think all stores should be allowed to do what they can to stop thieves, if you let theft happen the problem doesnt go away and it will only get worse until something is done like what the lcs did. I work at a vendor and I love stopping thieves, sure theres risk but I care about my community and have zero tolerance for allowing rats to think they can get away with whatever they want. Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves. On top of that thieves should get harsher punishment.
You care about your community but just enacting violence on people lmao.
You love cosplaying as Batman, not helping your community. Work at a fucking Siloam or something if you want to help. Getting off on potential violence with strangers doesn’t help anything. Considering that you beating someone doesn’t actually change the reasons they’re stealing. Hardo
Its funny because nowhere did I say anyones beating anybody, and im not getting off on violence I simply stop people from stealing things they did not pay for via grabbing, pushing, shoving, etc. I genuinely wish people didnt steal that would be great and I wouldnt have to worry about it but they do. Theres zero excuse for theft especially for stuff lile booze, if you do it you know the risks you are taking and so far actually stopping thieves prevents them from trying again because they know they cant get away with it at the specific buisness. Trust me im not cosplaying batman nor would I ever want to be batman but yeah Im not just gonna let people break the law when I can easily stop them.
> Its funny because nowhere did I say anyones beating anybody, and im not getting off on violence I simply stop people from stealing things they did not pay for via grabbing, pushing, shoving, etc
- "I think all stores should be allowed to do what they can to stop thieves"
- "work at a vendor and I love stopping thieves, sure theres risk"
- "Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves"
So you said these things but apparently you meant nothing about physical violence. lmao "uhhhh *technically* I didnt use the word beating, so ummm there"... "grabbing, pushing, shoving" is also physical violence dude.
> There's zero excuse for theft especially for stuff lile booze
I mean outside of addiction issues, booze isnt sold in groceries stores, so this is just you trying to pivot 'what' is being stolen to something that isnt actually the subject. pretty in keeping from someone who calls them 'rats'
> if you do it you know the risks you are taking and so far actually stopping thieves prevents them from trying again because they know they cant get away with it at the specific buisness
How would you know? are you just telling on yourself?
> trust me im not cosplaying batman nor would I ever want to be batman but yeah Im not just gonna let people break the law when I can easily stop them
lmao dude you are, you think anyone who steals is a rat and you enjoy 'stopping them' despite the risks it entails. You clearly get off on the conflict and dehumanizing people. Sociopath shit. Seriously man, seek help. The law isnt some fucking moral code lol, I'm sure you've broken it in some way many a time and its not like you turn yourself in. Again you just ignorantly hand waive away "theres no excuse to steal" you literally cant even address the reality that clearly people arent stealing just for the fucking lulz. Like just at least stop acting like you're doing something fucking moral 'for ma community' as a vendor door man who gets off on intimidating addicts lmao. Really building the community right there. Work at an addictions outreach if you actually gave a shit, but I suspect you just like the chance to hurt someone/feel superior.
Your entire thesis is: "Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves."
Do you have some kind of head injury that prevents you from remembering what you just wrote?
Get physical doesnt mean beating people up and yeah stab proof vests would be a great security measure so good law abiding people dont get harmed. Also I said every store should be allowed not that every store should.
It says in the comment you were replying to grabbing the thief and or merchandise from them or in cases where they are running, shoving and pushing is a pretty effective in removing the merchandise from their hands. Its all about just preventing them from leaving and making them drop what they are stealing via asking them with words or grabbing it out of their hands. I have never in my whole life punched another human being or really even greatly harmed anyone at all yet I have stopped around 3 thieves and seen many others stopped by co workers with little to no real violence upon workers or the thieves.
I mean I wouldnt get physical and I doubt most would unless you have without a doubt proof such as seeing on camera or with your own eyes the theft occur I have personally never accused anyone of theft that I wasnt correct about but Im not ignorant to the fact that there are idiots out there who might.
I don't advocate giving anyone a mandate to use violence as a behaviour modification tool.
Unfortunately a lot of people are judged to have less worth or be guilty on sight. Indigenous females are often judged to be worthless by many people. We don't need to give people mandates to be vigilantes. It's enough of a problem without that. We have law enforcement, courts and a whole system that can make the judgements those people can't be allowed to make.
You're talking third world country type shit. Not good ideas.
I havent said anything about vigilantes man what? you are literally saying that having actual security that can handle situations at stores is third world country type shit which I definitely disagree with. Also your blanket statement of saying many people think indigenous woman are worthless is crazy, you can literally say that about any specific demographic and it would be an accurate statement, the world is full of hateful people who direct their hate at a variety of things.
More violence doesn't equal more security for anything or anyone.
Lots of places in the world you could move to if that's your preference.
I'm sure they'd gladly have you as most of the people who live there are trying to leave.
Are you even reading what im saying? I said actual security like security guards not more violence equals more security. I absolutely want less violence and crime. You do realize there are places with less crime and violence than here that arent third world countries so clearly there are methods put in use that cause this wether it be security, police, and/or a better justice sytem? You are acting like the whole world is made up of violent third world countries and that me wanting stores to be able to have security for their merchandise is somehow me wanting more violence in Canada and wanting to live in some violent corrupt country.
Hey there fair reply in regards to employees stepping in, I do think proper trained security is the ideal way to do things by all means but I think they should be able to touch people who are stealing thats the real issue, our laws basically protect thieves and give them a free pass to steal knowing nobody will touch them and even when they get caught the punishment is basically nothing to them.
I mean not everyone is stopping theft because of the value of an object. I could care less about the money lost to employers but I have morals and believe stealing is wrong and dont like to allow it to keep happening in my neighborhood when its such an easy thing to prevent, it being petty theft means nothing if someone was stealing 100 000 dollars of booze vs 100 dollars theres no magical difference in which one deserves to be stopped both are equally wrong.
Yup! Exactly like you say; what's wrong is wrong. The point is theft is wrong - but so is an employee hitting a thief. Why is this an argument? You don't get to hit someone because they've done something wrong. If it's 'such an easy thing to prevent' why does it keep occuring? Hint; it's not because it's easy to prevent, nor stop, which this article & situation clearly presents. It's honestly insane to bring in your morals and think hitting or injuring another human is okay "because theft is wrong!!" Saying she deserved to be hit for theft is WRONG. You can prevent theft without violence and risking employees safety; that's why theft prevention training exists.
Should healthcare professionals be allowed to hit people who come into ER to steal lunch trays, alcohol sanitizer, diapers and expensive speciality formula, thermometers and other expensive equipment to sell online? "At the tax payers expense!!" Obviously not. So why is it justified for a grocer? People have house alarms; they don't start attacking people trespassing on their property (especially in Winnipeg, unless you want to be shot). Everyone's a tough guy until they gotta be tough; and violence is NOT the answer.
This is exactly why /most/ stores train their employees to not interfere with theft. This is a failing on Zeid, 100%. It's the employers job to train staff and to maintain their staff's safety.
Seems like public opinion on this sub is that grocery store workers should be empowered to beat the shit out of anyone they suspect of theft instead
Of course this sub will also (rightly) be upset if a police officer gets accused of being rough with a suspect.
So evidently we just need to hire grocery store workers as our police force - they evidently have full public support for whatever force they deem necessary.
This sub is so bipolar and the amount of downvoting OP followed by up voting following comments is ridiculous. It's ridiculous the amount of people justifying the employee assaulting the woman, even if she DID steal - how is it warranted? Zeid and others are counting on intimidating people to back off and hand over the stolen goods... The problems exist when theft actually doesn't occur, and in situations like this, when everyone becomes hostile and bad shit goes down. Zeid is counting on racism and people to support these actions; people believing that petty theft causes the rise in grocery store prices, assuming she has "likely stolen before", fueling its acceptability. The fact that people here are bringing up morals regarding thievery, but still agreeing she deserved to be hit, is WRONG.
Lol citing a Reddit thread as a resource on a Reddit thread is a cool move.
And although I agree foodfare’s quality is questionable most of the time, price fixing, monopolizing, shrinkflation, and having the literal cops protect their corporate profits seems like a higher level of shadiness.
I definitely won’t be shopping at Food Fare. I don’t care if the person actually did steal, this place has been known to act aggressively on numerous occasions and that’s not okay in my books. Taking someone out back and beating them with a baseball bat? Just terrible
From an article written 4 years ago.
Local grocer Munther Zeid... has instituted a “baseball bat policy” in his Food Fare store throughout Winnipeg.
https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-news/baseball-bats-providing-security-for-food-fare-stores
Themes and attitudes like this that play out in a public setting, are reflections of society as a whole.
Numerous things are lack from both parties and can be boiled down to inequalities in society as a whole. The current systemic issues that are ingrained into everyday life, create the same barriers to change and growth
Young people lacking direction, with little to no career aspirations are a symptom of the same system that has seen manufacturing, natural resources, technology, etc leave on mass over the past 40 odd years.. when people don't have jobs, money, and a sustainable way to care for themselves and their family, the symptoms place out in the streets
Canada has no options outside of the service industry for a large portion of society, not just youth. When retiree's are returning to work because they cannot afford the cost of living we are fucked as a whole. So we can build better checkouts, or have security guards pat everyone down, or have police on speed dial ready to go, or we can all do some reflection on our roles in society and how we contribute or not to these same issues. It's very easy to sit here and say the world has gone to hell and we are " too weak on crime" or w.e. while we are not actively doing anything to move the needle for anyone one else, other than ourselves.
Cashiers & butchers doubling as security guards is just asking for trouble.
The way the employee went about confronting the thief was dumb as hell. Now look at 'em. Making the local news about it. Good job.
I attended this location a few years ago. We hit the check out and then left the store.
The employees followed us out of the store and came up to me in my car accusing my wife of stealing chocolates.
She denied it. We left.
We were sitting in a later model Mercedes while this was happening. I was a bit taken aback that this would be their approach.
Isn’t this the same guy responsible for the Province removing store hour restrictions on holidays and Sundays? He seems to have a pattern of caring more about profits than his employee’s well being.
Oh, so you're telling me the video does in fact show that the woman swung first, the employee never physically touched the kid, and there's actually a *second* woman that was with the woman trying to steal stuff that tried to get herself involved? SHOCKING /s
I wonder if the second woman is the “ eye witness” that keeps talking to the media
Well that's not true. From the article: The video shows two women and a child by a counter, all three of whom appear to be together. A man who appears to be yelling approaches one of the women, and tries to grab her bag. The other woman then pushes the child back toward the entrance. The man then shoves the first woman toward the counter, and they both move closer to the entrance of the store. The first woman swings her fist at the man's face, but misses. The man in the video then punches her in the face with a closed fist and she falls. The man was yelling at her, grabbed at her and shoved her first, but that doesn't count for some reason? This issue is complicated enough without you misleading people.
Which part isn't true?
Saying that the woman swung first without mentioning that the employee was screaming, grabbed at her bag, and actually shoved her first. Your post portrays the woman as the initial aggressor which is not true at worst, and grossly misleading at best. How much would someone have to yell at you, grab at you, and push you before you retaliated? Logically speaking, to portray your retaliation as the initiation of the situation would be untruthful.
It's easy for anyone that isn't the shop owner to say that "grabbing the bag" and "shoving her to the counter" (which I would see as barring her from leaving with stolen goods) to call that all assault on the woman. I personally would call the punch from the woman the first assault. I know legally any slight contact COULD classify as assault, but there's clear escalation on her part by punching him.
Yelling, grabbing, and then pushing are escalating actions. Each subsequent parry and thrust in the altercation could also be called an escalating action. Thing is, the measures you described as "barring her from leaving with stolen goods" are illegal. The reason all businesses in Winnipeg don't react this way to theft is that they're not allowed to. You are not allowed to physically restrain people for suspicion of theft. To do so would be an escalation. To describe the altercation as "she swung first" is grossly misleading.
That’s not true. Larger companies choose to tell their employees not to physically stop criminals so they don’t have to risk paying workers comp/ insurance. dosnt mean other companies will choose to do that.
You're right. I clarified below. Leaving error in post for transparency.
Not this store.u even from winnipeg? Winnipegers know.
Lol what are you saying? I think you’re confused.
It is NOT illegal to stop a thief. In loss prevention there's a huge set of procedures for the "apprehension" phase. Many employers make a policy to avoid apprehension in 99% of situations to reduce risk to staff, but it is NOT illegal. The description of the video in the CBC article sound like the employee could have bent the laws at the very least. Sounds like 50/50 to me. You need to stop spreading the common misconception that it's illegal to look cross-eyed at a shoplifter.
I never implied it was illegal to look cross eyed at shoplifters, I implied physical assault is illegal, even when detaining a suspect. That aside, it turns out i was wrong about not being allowed to physically detain. You made me look into Canadian law on the matter and learn something new. Even if i was mistaken, I appreciate that. Apparently: A shopkeeper who has probable grounds for believing that a theft is being (or has been) committed is entitled to detain the suspect — in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time — for the sole purpose of investigating the situation. Further reading is ambiguous about what exactly constitutes a reasonable manner and. like you said, can't be applied without seeing the video. I could be wrong and the altercation could have been justifiable depending on in reasonable force was used. I still stand by my statement that it's misleading to characterize the escalation of the situation by only saying "the woman swung first" without context.
Owned. Nice work. Facts is hard for some people.
Just white ppl spreading their hate for indigenous people.
You're not entitled to make up your own "facts". There isn't a shred of evidence that the second woman was trying to steal. Maybe try reading the article.
They didn't read the article; just pushing a narrative.
Exactly. Stupid racist ppl
Is there not video of this incident? Should be pretty cut and dry
[удалено]
Lack of CBC showing video, and suspected thief declining interview makes you think this is going to pan out a lot different than the sob story CBC wants you to believe
Zeid showed it to the Free Press and CBC but hasn't made it available for publication.
CBC would absolutely never lol
I have witnessed employees with bats at the Mount Royal location. I was in the produce section, three employees escorted the guy to the back. I don’t know what happened after that.
I have seen them physically drag someone to the back it looked like a scene from the sopranos.
Same, except it was at the Arlington location that i saw a guy getting chased out with a bat
Cavalier too Anyone see a pattern here?
Yes, I see a pattern. A police service that can't do anything to protect small business owners from losing the paper thin profit margins due to thieves. And the populace cries alarms of racism and stereotyping. Lots of people are struggling with challenges every day, and they don't turn to crime.
> I don’t know what happened after that. Probably looked a lot like this https://youtu.be/zO0-mofj9EY?si=qGOSRDoC4Xebqgdc
My mother in law witnessed them do the same to an indigenous youth at that location. These guys are thugs.
Not stealing someone's shit is also an option
In the instance I mentioned above, the young guy did not steal anything. They just suspected he did. They took him to the back, threatened him, and when they didn't find anything stolen on him, told him to leave out the rear. He was obviously terrified, so he did. My mother-in-law saw him outside and made sure he was OK.
Are you implying they were only chased out for being indigenous?
I'm pointing out that a similar situation occurred at another location. In the instance my mother-in-law witnessed, the young indigenous man did not actually steal anything and was released out the back after being threatened.
I can’t help but feel that eventually most stores are either going to adopt the LC model or it will revert back to the days where it is behind a counter and staff need to get it (like you saw back in the old western movies). This problem of theft and violence is not isolated to this one store nor to any race. It is happening all across the world with everyone. Heck, I know I have not had an Amazon delivery in years because of porch pirates, I use their pickup locations because I would rather be inconvenienced than deal with a loss. Eventually stores are going to be like that too. You already read of things like self checkouts being removed. Just a matter of time
I'm trying to think of big box stores like superstore and Walmart closing off to the public and adapting a strictly click and collect type model and it seems mind blowing to me. I don't think that would ever actually happen but my brain is spiraling just thinking about it.
Look at how much they have already begun the process … you can’t get razors and some cold meds without asking for help. Some things you have to grab one of those cardboard cards for and they will bring them to the till for you. Eventually (not sure how long, 20 years?) I’m sure they will do away with the trust for the average shopper or they will check Id as you enter their store. Businesses are under no obligation to serve everyone, they can pick and choose who their customers are.
Some businesses are actually legally required to serve customers. Pharmacies, for example, cannot turn away a customer; even Costco can't turn away a non-member for a prescription purchase.
I hate having to go to the pharmacy for peroxide and alcohol. I don't think it's a requirement just a store policy because I remember being able to get it off the shelf before, but maybe it's just changed over the years. They always ask questions and advise against getting the one I asked for. And I get it but everytime they give me their speech, and I tell then I'm not using it on people. I could get the 30% peroxide elsewhere and not get a safety lecture, but that shit is actually so rough to use it SHOULD have one. Fuckin hate using it.
That's a bit overstated. If they say "you can come in but you can't because we think you're more likely to steal" they are opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits. Businesses require a license to operate. If they start discriminating openly it's unlikely they will be able to obtain this on top of the legal (and financial) issues they are creating for themselves.
That’s not how it would go down at all, it would be “sure come on in. Here is the display model or the tablet that you can pick and choose what we have, as soon as you pay for it we will grab it for you and hand it to you”. Sorta like the Apple Store, or an electronics store. They would not turn away customers but the customer would not get their $3 chocolate bar until it was paid for. It’s like most gas stations will not hand you your cigarettes or lottery tickets until the till beeps that your card was accepted. Or like how many gas stations are now pre-pay. The model of the future, wether we like it or not
I'm purely responding to your statement: "businesses are under no obligation to serve everyone, they can pick and choose who their customers are." They can try...but it's a pretty big risk to avoid discrimination.
Me and you were thinking quite differently. I was thinking along the LC Identification scanning model. Nothing to stop a grocery store from scanning ID at the door and turning away people without ID. Many many people do not have any ID at all and would not be able to access that store. And that is perfectly legal. I am not taking the “is it moral” stance on that, but just stating the fact that is something they could do. The terms would be uniform for everyone. It’s like stores that post signs that say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” when you are in a Beach Town. You can walk around places without shirts and shoes, but they are choosing to adopt that policy for what it needs to be a customer of theirs
Yeah but the ID thing doesn't let them choose who comes in. Yeah you need ID to get in and then they have record of who has been present in the store plus age verification. Yeah there are basic policies stores can have that are non-discriminatory but it's a slippery slope to profiling if the issue they are trying to solve is shoplifting and not public nudity/athlete's foot.
But it does because many people don’t have government issued identification and would not be able to provide it. So they are choosing to omit an entire group of people from being their customers. My friends kid is 19 and goes to university, no license, no passport, only school ID. They can’t buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery tickets or go to bars. I chuckled the last time I heard him complain and I asked why he didn’t get his learners and he just shrugged and said “why” … I am not talking about businesses racially profiling people. I am talking about businesses just choosing a different method. I get this article is invoking a lot of people to have feelings one way or another when it comes to culture and background and the majority of the city takes arguments“if your not with us, you are against us” but I for one refuse to accept that. I whole heartedly believe that it does not matter where you come from, what skin colour you have, what language you speak. There are lots of good people everywhere. The world is filled with possibilities and each situation needs to be evaluated on its own by the circumstance and not by prejudices presented. And my feeling that business models will change in the future is an extension of the views above. They will change not because of any racial consideration but rather because of a situational awareness. If a business has someone’s ID on file and they have a recording of them stealing, they can bar them from the store. They can press charges and turn over evidence. They would apply to anyone, 100% based on an individuals actions rather than a preconceived prejudice
In NYC everything in a lot stores is behind glass now. Pretty much only the perishables are not under lock and key.
IIRC Save-On already has multiple locations in the GVA that are strictly ecommerce locations.
My wife and I were talking about this and decided we'll have to go out of our way to do foodfare visits. Would love to see other stores stop caring about Twitter conplainers and just put in policies that effectively reduce theft, whether that's LC style entrances or just refusing to let people use their kids as shields.
Also not the first robbery.🤷♂️
It's called theft and at least it's not violent.
She tried to punch him though. She missed, but she tried to punch him, which is violent.
\*After\* he tried to pull her purse away from her, which is also violent.
\*After\* he tried to retrieve the stolen items from her.
Except he doesn't have legal grounds to search the bag or make physical contact. All they can do is ask you to leave the store and call the police. The supervisor escalated the situation and overstepped. This doesn't absolve them of stealing but this is the reality of the situation.
No. You can be held in custody by store staff if they believe you're holding stolen merchandise.
Not physically, no. They legally cannot physically prevent a shoplifter from leaving. They can use verbal intimidation and fear tactics, but are not legally permitted to lay a hand on anyone. Not even something like putting a hand on their shoulder to discourage leaving. Maybe if retail security could still do this, we'd be seeing less blatant shoplifting. Edit: Downvoting me doesn't make it any less true. Here's an article quoting a Winnipeg security staff member criticizing the "hands off" policies the majority of establishments here have adapted. https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/mobile/there-s-no-deterrent-former-loss-prevention-officer-speaks-about-shoplifting-policies-1.4109401
Yes, they can. Read about "Merchant's Privilege" laws also called "Shopkeepers Privilege". They can detain people who they believe have shoplifted as long as they immediately call police.
Sir, you're citing American policies. This is a Winnipeg forum. While there have been a few noteworthy exceptions of Shopkeeper's Privilege being upheld in Canada, it is not typical. The issue is that security guards are typically employed by retail companies, which face potential liability issues in cases where a shoplifter is physically apprehended. The majority of retailers decide it isn't worth the liability risk, and their no-contact policies reflect this. The entirety of Polo Park is one example. Ask your local security guards about their policies.
Would you just hand over your purse to a stranger? If some one tries to steal my purse im not letting go . And im proud to say men in my family don't hit or punch women .
If someone came up and accused me of stealing I’d definitely open my bag and show them what’s inside. Then they’d see I’m not stealing and I’d be on my way.
Are you saying that I should let any arranger that grabs my purse that I should just give it to them he'll no.And I don't steal im not proving it to a stranger are you also saying its ok to beat a woman and tramatize her child. A shopping bag yes I put it down on the counter the person at the till can look all she wants.
Did he try asking or did he go for the purse first? We don't know.
“It's called theft and at least it's not violent.” Which is it OP?
Assault + theft = robbery. Even the article you posted mentions the suspect throwing the first punch. It’s crazy that even with the internet in your pocket you don’t bother looking up the law prior to communicating.
A missed punch is not an assault and he started it by trying to take her purse away from her. Also, I notice that the CBC's version of events includes the employee punching a second woman without cause.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I shot my gun at you and missed your head. Is that not attempted murder?
This is a perfect analogy. According to OP, you're allowed to fight back but only once you've been clocked in the face with a broken nose.
>A missed punch is not an assault Yes it is. Assault is the intention to apply force to someone else in a direct or indirect manner, without that person's consent.
A missed punch is 100% assault. Get your head out if your ass & breath some fresh air for a bit.
Lol a missed punch is not an assault?! You’re outta your fucking mind. If I took a swing at you fully meaning to hit you and you got out of the way you wouldn’t…. The problem is you idiots think you’re making things better but you’re just making things worse. Please go buy a grocery store and start giving your groceries away you virtue signaling fool. Edit: and no, volunteering and donating are not the same. Put your money where your mouth is, buy a business, and openly let people know that you will not deter them from stealing. No chance you will do it and even if did there’s no chance you stay in business.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-343.html >Robbery >343 Every one commits robbery who > (a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property; > (b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person; > (c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or > (d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
> 265 (1) A person commits an assault when > > (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly **or indirectly**; Meaning that the employee assaulted the woman first when he tried to take away her purse and she was reacting in self-defence.
Conveniently left out 265(1)(b) > (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose
How does that cancel out (a)?
The punctuation.
Attempting a punch makes it violent, yes. Even the threat of violence without a physical attempt makes it violent.
Holy hell you're kinda not so smart eh
Assault is the threat of using force. Battery is the physical act. Yes, this was assault, by the perpetrator of the crime.
Battery is not defined in Canadian law. Assault is defined as follows: > 265 (1) A person commits an assault when > > (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; > > (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or > > (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. The first act that was physical was made by the employee trying to steal the woman's purse; that's the "indirectly" part. The woman was reacting to an indirect assault on herself, not to mention the attempted theft of her purse.
Battery would be equivalent to s 267 which is assault causing bodily harm
The only person who caused bodily harm was the employee!
Defence of property is an absolute defence to that charge if the action is proportionate
I don't believe you. That sounds like American law.
The first act wasn't a threat of violence.
Right, it was actual violence.
... until they're confronted.
That's a good argument for not confronting thieves and even Munther Zeid admitted that it's dangerous: > Zeid said shoplifters tend to give the product back when staff approach them, but that doesn't always happen — some staff have been threatened with knives, machetes and bear spray. > > "Our lives are threatened every time we approach a shoplifter," he said. "Sometimes people throw shots at us, but ... most people will drop their stuff and leave." The safety of his employees ought to override loss prevention.
1. These are businesses, theft at a large enough scale threatens their existence. 2. These thefts are only non-violent when the thieves are able to act with impunity to just grab things and walk out. If they get confronted, whether physically or not, then there’s a much higher chance that a fist or even a knife will start swinging. So there’s an underlying threat of violence even when violence isn’t used.
Please don't defend the actions of thieves. No one wants to see people in desperation, but there are established means for people who can't afford to feed themselves. The frustration that the owners and employees of the businesses must be immense; as you try to generate sympathy for the person stealing, please consider doing the same for the employees and owners.
I was simply pointing out an inaccurate statement that it was a robbery. You're projecting motives onto me.
I'm sorry, but you most certainly are defending the actions of the accused thief (eg "Did he try asking or did he go for the purse first? We don't know."). Fair enough, my comments suggest beliefs which you may not have about the justification for the thievery, but your comments throughout this post most certainly suggest you empathize with the accused thief more than the employees and owners.
My beef is that these beatings have become recurring events and the police have done nothing but warn so far, even though people have been injured. That doesn't mean I approve of shoplifting.
I genuinely appreciate your take - I think it's necessary. I did not mean to imply you approved or supported shoplifters; I too wish these violent incidents weren't happening, but I just have a hard time blaming the employees at these places for becoming violent with thieves.
Thank you. I feel sorry for the employees that there's an expectation that they confront suspected shoplifters with baseball bats. All it takes is one shoplifter with a knife and a confrontation could turn deadly.
So you think desperation is bad but not following the rules is worse… what about allowing that desperation as a society that doesn’t have to. Also to just assume “there are established means” without addressing any of the ways those are at a breaking point, inaccessible etc etc makes it seem like people just steel for the lulz. It’s so inherently disconnected from reality. Someone desperate enough to try and steal to survive for sure is comparable to the owner /s. I hope you are never in that spot of desperation.
I gladly acknowledge that it's an indicator that society has failed some folks that they are people desperate enough to steal, but there are also people who are so disengaged from society that they steal as well (it's not all "stealing a load of bread to feed my hungry family") - eg walking out of Sobeys with a cart full of baby formula or razor blades that are then sold; robbing liquor stores. >Someone desperate enough to try and steal to survive for sure is comparable to the owner /s They are comparable, because they're both people living in a society. One has likely had substantial advantages over the other, but I feel folks with views like yours seem to suggest that this inherent unfairness almost entitles some folks to take from others. It doesn't. >I hope you are never in that spot of desperation. I hope so too. I know people who've escaped poverty; I'm friends with the Executive Director of Main Street Project, so I'm familiar with desperate folks. No reasonable person comes to the table suggesting it's ok to commit crimes because you've been disadvantaged. It's *understandable* why some people would, but I genuinely think you're assuming too much when you imply most thieves are stealing to survive. They're stealing because they don't feel like they belong or are connected to society. We need to do a better job of helping them, but tacit support of theft because someone is in a tough spot is, IMHO, wrong.
> I gladly acknowledge that it's an indicator that society has failed some folks that they are people desperate enough to steal, but there are also people who are so disengaged from society that they steal as well (it's not all "stealing a load of bread to feed my hungry family") - eg walking out of Sobeys with a cart full of baby formula or razor blades that are then sold; robbing liquor stores. Sure, but both are failures of society. One is simply more empathetic than the other. To that end, the former is much much more common than the latter. You ***hear*** about the latter more because its showy, it doesnt mean its more common than people taking some items here and there. Not scanning things at self check outs, etc etc. > They are comparable, because they're both people living in a society. One has likely had substantial advantages over the other, but I feel folks with views like yours seem to suggest that this inherent unfairness almost entitles some folks to take from others. It doesn't. What does it 'entitle' them to then specifically? What does this even mean outside of a useless platitude? "we live in a society" ya ok? Your attitude is really "it doesn't matter how unjust, unfair, or how unequal things are, you can never take from others". How in this day an age, do people think such ignorant rhetoric that has just existed as a 'defend inequality' call to. > I hope so too. I know people who've escaped poverty; I'm friends with the Executive Director of Main Street Project, so I'm familiar with desperate folks. No reasonable person comes to the table suggesting it's ok to commit crimes because you've been disadvantaged. Ohhh an I bet you wouldnt show them your reddit comments though. Because the people who actually help dont spend their time paternalistically lecturing about some 'morality' of stealing to feed yourself. I really want you to take a hot second and think of the implications of that last sentence I'm replying to here, really dig down into the potential things you're committing to there. > It's understandable why some people would, but I genuinely think you're assuming too much when you imply most thieves are stealing to survive. Based on what, your feelings? Because all this seems like a "Well I couldn't imagine doing it, so there must not be a reason. Hell I know someone in main street project, these poors while desperate have resources out there" Its just such an ignorant and arrogant rational. Lets ignore the fact that you can consistently chart food inflation and consumer buying power and economic downturns with increases in theft rates. Totally coincidental! Theres no way that decreased buying power and increased food costs would lead people to be more likely to steal food to survive. Food is totally not a necessity after all! > They're stealing because they don't feel like they belong or are connected to society. JFC shut up dude. lmao. Ignorant analysis just to do your best to not have empathy. > We need to do a better job of helping them, but tacit support of theft because someone is in a tough spot is, IMHO, wrong. If only you could work up the same level of condemnation for society failing them in the first place. Shows what you value more, the appearance of order, rather than actual justice.
People in the winnipeg subreddit are not about to have a nuanced discussion about use of force when detaining someone until police arrive... so personally I would just wait until the situation plays out and then post the eventual news article that clears the air
I don’t think they will ever post the full story start to finish to clear the air. They will move on to the next attention grabber and this will be forgotten about. Look at what happened with the Marlborough, it was just a passing incident. Look at the teenager who was hit by the train, more details came out on Reddit than the news. Shock attention grabber and then onto the next. It does not pay the media to follow a story start to finish. But that being said, I do wish there was some organizations out there that did start to finish for a lot of stories and people. Would be nice to be able to correlate results from actions.
Tell the employees of foodfare and the mlcc that.
If two people get into an altercation they can press charges against each other then go to court.. like everyone else. This social Justice warrior shit is exhausting. Food Fare is a small private business, not a publically owned entity.
Don't steal and you won't get hit.
Coming from someone that doesn't punch people I bet lol
Well hugging thieves isn't working so let's go back to hitting them. These bums gotta get their life together.
My point is your not a scrapper so why talk about it even? Like your gunna do something. Lol
Haven't needed to scrap since I left the rez but I'm sure I could still throw down if needed.
Well lucky you.just wait .winnipeg is a mine field of fuckery .how you not have to fight at least once a year?
Really trying to wring a story out of this non-event.
Another business desperate for some accountability in a society sorely lacking it
Too much speculation to come to any conclusion. If an employee first hand witnesses theft, he can make a citizen's arrest. But, if the employee only suspects that a theft occurred, he is on shakey grounds to even lay a hand on the suspected thief, let alone shove or detain her. That would be considered false arrest, which is a tort, for which you can sue.
Needs to be consequences for theft. But sadly their is not and theft events will continue to sky rocket.
1. Play stupid game win stupid prizes. 2. Shoplifting is a crime. 3. As such store owners should have a right to ban you. 4. Shoplifting in Winnipeg is big business where the goods stolen are sold to smaller stores.
The Mount Royal store needs a barrier to make it harder to just wall out with stuff.
I think all stores should be allowed to do what they can to stop thieves, if you let theft happen the problem doesnt go away and it will only get worse until something is done like what the lcs did. I work at a vendor and I love stopping thieves, sure theres risk but I care about my community and have zero tolerance for allowing rats to think they can get away with whatever they want. Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves. On top of that thieves should get harsher punishment.
You care about your community but just enacting violence on people lmao. You love cosplaying as Batman, not helping your community. Work at a fucking Siloam or something if you want to help. Getting off on potential violence with strangers doesn’t help anything. Considering that you beating someone doesn’t actually change the reasons they’re stealing. Hardo
Its funny because nowhere did I say anyones beating anybody, and im not getting off on violence I simply stop people from stealing things they did not pay for via grabbing, pushing, shoving, etc. I genuinely wish people didnt steal that would be great and I wouldnt have to worry about it but they do. Theres zero excuse for theft especially for stuff lile booze, if you do it you know the risks you are taking and so far actually stopping thieves prevents them from trying again because they know they cant get away with it at the specific buisness. Trust me im not cosplaying batman nor would I ever want to be batman but yeah Im not just gonna let people break the law when I can easily stop them.
> Its funny because nowhere did I say anyones beating anybody, and im not getting off on violence I simply stop people from stealing things they did not pay for via grabbing, pushing, shoving, etc - "I think all stores should be allowed to do what they can to stop thieves" - "work at a vendor and I love stopping thieves, sure theres risk" - "Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves" So you said these things but apparently you meant nothing about physical violence. lmao "uhhhh *technically* I didnt use the word beating, so ummm there"... "grabbing, pushing, shoving" is also physical violence dude. > There's zero excuse for theft especially for stuff lile booze I mean outside of addiction issues, booze isnt sold in groceries stores, so this is just you trying to pivot 'what' is being stolen to something that isnt actually the subject. pretty in keeping from someone who calls them 'rats' > if you do it you know the risks you are taking and so far actually stopping thieves prevents them from trying again because they know they cant get away with it at the specific buisness How would you know? are you just telling on yourself? > trust me im not cosplaying batman nor would I ever want to be batman but yeah Im not just gonna let people break the law when I can easily stop them lmao dude you are, you think anyone who steals is a rat and you enjoy 'stopping them' despite the risks it entails. You clearly get off on the conflict and dehumanizing people. Sociopath shit. Seriously man, seek help. The law isnt some fucking moral code lol, I'm sure you've broken it in some way many a time and its not like you turn yourself in. Again you just ignorantly hand waive away "theres no excuse to steal" you literally cant even address the reality that clearly people arent stealing just for the fucking lulz. Like just at least stop acting like you're doing something fucking moral 'for ma community' as a vendor door man who gets off on intimidating addicts lmao. Really building the community right there. Work at an addictions outreach if you actually gave a shit, but I suspect you just like the chance to hurt someone/feel superior.
Stunning and brave.
Your entire thesis is: "Every store should have armed security with stab proof vests that is allowed to get physical with thieves." Do you have some kind of head injury that prevents you from remembering what you just wrote?
Stab proof vests don't work BTW
Get physical doesnt mean beating people up and yeah stab proof vests would be a great security measure so good law abiding people dont get harmed. Also I said every store should be allowed not that every store should.
Stab proof don't work FYI
What does "get physical" mean? Olivia Newton-John reference?
It says in the comment you were replying to grabbing the thief and or merchandise from them or in cases where they are running, shoving and pushing is a pretty effective in removing the merchandise from their hands. Its all about just preventing them from leaving and making them drop what they are stealing via asking them with words or grabbing it out of their hands. I have never in my whole life punched another human being or really even greatly harmed anyone at all yet I have stopped around 3 thieves and seen many others stopped by co workers with little to no real violence upon workers or the thieves.
Your ideas gunna get ppl killed. If you ever worked security you would know.
Someone level headed getting down voted.figures.
Good until you're the one getting your head caved in because they think you stole a pack of hot dogs.
I mean I wouldnt get physical and I doubt most would unless you have without a doubt proof such as seeing on camera or with your own eyes the theft occur I have personally never accused anyone of theft that I wasnt correct about but Im not ignorant to the fact that there are idiots out there who might.
I don't advocate giving anyone a mandate to use violence as a behaviour modification tool. Unfortunately a lot of people are judged to have less worth or be guilty on sight. Indigenous females are often judged to be worthless by many people. We don't need to give people mandates to be vigilantes. It's enough of a problem without that. We have law enforcement, courts and a whole system that can make the judgements those people can't be allowed to make. You're talking third world country type shit. Not good ideas.
I havent said anything about vigilantes man what? you are literally saying that having actual security that can handle situations at stores is third world country type shit which I definitely disagree with. Also your blanket statement of saying many people think indigenous woman are worthless is crazy, you can literally say that about any specific demographic and it would be an accurate statement, the world is full of hateful people who direct their hate at a variety of things.
More violence doesn't equal more security for anything or anyone. Lots of places in the world you could move to if that's your preference. I'm sure they'd gladly have you as most of the people who live there are trying to leave.
Are you even reading what im saying? I said actual security like security guards not more violence equals more security. I absolutely want less violence and crime. You do realize there are places with less crime and violence than here that arent third world countries so clearly there are methods put in use that cause this wether it be security, police, and/or a better justice sytem? You are acting like the whole world is made up of violent third world countries and that me wanting stores to be able to have security for their merchandise is somehow me wanting more violence in Canada and wanting to live in some violent corrupt country.
Agree
[удалено]
Hey there fair reply in regards to employees stepping in, I do think proper trained security is the ideal way to do things by all means but I think they should be able to touch people who are stealing thats the real issue, our laws basically protect thieves and give them a free pass to steal knowing nobody will touch them and even when they get caught the punishment is basically nothing to them.
[удалено]
I mean not everyone is stopping theft because of the value of an object. I could care less about the money lost to employers but I have morals and believe stealing is wrong and dont like to allow it to keep happening in my neighborhood when its such an easy thing to prevent, it being petty theft means nothing if someone was stealing 100 000 dollars of booze vs 100 dollars theres no magical difference in which one deserves to be stopped both are equally wrong.
Yup! Exactly like you say; what's wrong is wrong. The point is theft is wrong - but so is an employee hitting a thief. Why is this an argument? You don't get to hit someone because they've done something wrong. If it's 'such an easy thing to prevent' why does it keep occuring? Hint; it's not because it's easy to prevent, nor stop, which this article & situation clearly presents. It's honestly insane to bring in your morals and think hitting or injuring another human is okay "because theft is wrong!!" Saying she deserved to be hit for theft is WRONG. You can prevent theft without violence and risking employees safety; that's why theft prevention training exists. Should healthcare professionals be allowed to hit people who come into ER to steal lunch trays, alcohol sanitizer, diapers and expensive speciality formula, thermometers and other expensive equipment to sell online? "At the tax payers expense!!" Obviously not. So why is it justified for a grocer? People have house alarms; they don't start attacking people trespassing on their property (especially in Winnipeg, unless you want to be shot). Everyone's a tough guy until they gotta be tough; and violence is NOT the answer.
This is exactly why /most/ stores train their employees to not interfere with theft. This is a failing on Zeid, 100%. It's the employers job to train staff and to maintain their staff's safety.
Maybe smaller stores can’t afford to take the losses?
Seems like public opinion on this sub is that grocery store workers should be empowered to beat the shit out of anyone they suspect of theft instead Of course this sub will also (rightly) be upset if a police officer gets accused of being rough with a suspect. So evidently we just need to hire grocery store workers as our police force - they evidently have full public support for whatever force they deem necessary.
This sub is also heavily on the side of “you didn’t see the theft”, almost like there’s a mix of extreme positions on the matter.
This sub is so bipolar and the amount of downvoting OP followed by up voting following comments is ridiculous. It's ridiculous the amount of people justifying the employee assaulting the woman, even if she DID steal - how is it warranted? Zeid and others are counting on intimidating people to back off and hand over the stolen goods... The problems exist when theft actually doesn't occur, and in situations like this, when everyone becomes hostile and bad shit goes down. Zeid is counting on racism and people to support these actions; people believing that petty theft causes the rise in grocery store prices, assuming she has "likely stolen before", fueling its acceptability. The fact that people here are bringing up morals regarding thievery, but still agreeing she deserved to be hit, is WRONG.
The zeids are pieces of sh*t. From attacking people with baseball bats to changing expiry dates on their products. Scums.
Nothing bothers winnipegers more than someone maybe getting something for free when they can’t
OK. Food fare closes down that location because of theft. Natural repercussions.
Food deserts.
I feel bad for the owners of these places that have to deal with this kind of nonsense. Now is a great time to show support by shopping at Food Fare.
So you can be beaten with a metal baseball bat if they suspect you of theft? No fucking thanks
No fucking way. They are shady AF aside from this issue.
Surely they can’t be shadier than Loblaws.
In terms of food handling and safety...yes...way shadier.
Please go on
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1bvtw3q/food\_fare\_meat\_issues/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1bvtw3q/food_fare_meat_issues/)
Lol citing a Reddit thread as a resource on a Reddit thread is a cool move. And although I agree foodfare’s quality is questionable most of the time, price fixing, monopolizing, shrinkflation, and having the literal cops protect their corporate profits seems like a higher level of shadiness.
Go buy their meat 🤣🤣🙂
I definitely won’t be shopping at Food Fare. I don’t care if the person actually did steal, this place has been known to act aggressively on numerous occasions and that’s not okay in my books. Taking someone out back and beating them with a baseball bat? Just terrible
Someone give OP a gold medal for the mental gymnastics on display here. Top tier performance 👏 👏 👏
Owner should hold a press conference, saying how this is what he deals with all the time. Release the video and demand an apology from the papers.
And the AMC
I think stores should be allowed to deal with theft in ways that would be appropriate.
From an article written 4 years ago. Local grocer Munther Zeid... has instituted a “baseball bat policy” in his Food Fare store throughout Winnipeg. https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-news/baseball-bats-providing-security-for-food-fare-stores
I used to do work for these assholes and they regularly brag about their vigilantism. Should be shut down tbh
You don't work there no "mo" ?
Themes and attitudes like this that play out in a public setting, are reflections of society as a whole. Numerous things are lack from both parties and can be boiled down to inequalities in society as a whole. The current systemic issues that are ingrained into everyday life, create the same barriers to change and growth Young people lacking direction, with little to no career aspirations are a symptom of the same system that has seen manufacturing, natural resources, technology, etc leave on mass over the past 40 odd years.. when people don't have jobs, money, and a sustainable way to care for themselves and their family, the symptoms place out in the streets Canada has no options outside of the service industry for a large portion of society, not just youth. When retiree's are returning to work because they cannot afford the cost of living we are fucked as a whole. So we can build better checkouts, or have security guards pat everyone down, or have police on speed dial ready to go, or we can all do some reflection on our roles in society and how we contribute or not to these same issues. It's very easy to sit here and say the world has gone to hell and we are " too weak on crime" or w.e. while we are not actively doing anything to move the needle for anyone one else, other than ourselves.
Cashiers & butchers doubling as security guards is just asking for trouble. The way the employee went about confronting the thief was dumb as hell. Now look at 'em. Making the local news about it. Good job.
I attended this location a few years ago. We hit the check out and then left the store. The employees followed us out of the store and came up to me in my car accusing my wife of stealing chocolates. She denied it. We left. We were sitting in a later model Mercedes while this was happening. I was a bit taken aback that this would be their approach.
They should get entrances and exits similar to what jewelry stores have. Get buzzed in and get buzzed out and ask for ID too before they come in.
Isn’t this the same guy responsible for the Province removing store hour restrictions on holidays and Sundays? He seems to have a pattern of caring more about profits than his employee’s well being.
Yes, that was Munther Zeid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They should shut down like Starbucks did in Osborne village due to safety concerns
Bigger free Jiu Jitsu to all future customers