Hacker News Reader

Comment by kukx | Hacker News Reader

It makes me wonder, what the owner could do in that environment to prevent such theft, ie in the circumstances where the police cannot be bothered. I wonder if making extremely loud, directed noise to cause a discomfort for thieves is legal or effective.

View on HN

They close down. Obviously you can't operate a retail store if that type of conduct is permitted.

Either that or they lock up all the merchandise and don't unlock it until the customer pays.

Amazon lockers?

Yes, but for people

I was in downtown SF, in the Financial District. There’s a Walgreens there, run by a group of older Asian ladies.

A guy came in and started grabbing things from the shelf, and putting them in his bag.

The ladies started shouting “Thief! Shame! Shame! Shame!”

The guy left quickly.

Did he leave with the stuff? Because if he took the stuff in his bag with him when he left, that doesn't really seem like a win.

He stopped filling his bag and walked out.

I don’t know if he was “done.” A lot of people were looking at him, and he was being screamed at.

In fact they sell these noise makers, they're called BoomSticks and they also launch lethal projectiles.

In most (all?) US localities, you can't legally shoot someone for stealing stuff from your store.

That's good! Deadly force should only be used to prevent serious physical harm. It should be pretty easy to trace those people and put them in jail. But I'm sure the SF police didn't even bother.

Does SF prosecute petty theft? In Seattle we mostly don't, and haven't for years. As a result, there's usually not much point for police to put petty thieves in jail.

I'm not even sure they investigate/prosecute class C felony theft here much anymore. Above $5,000 stolen (class B felony theft), and then maybe there's a case.

I think it's a misdemeanor here.

Unfortunately it's less about the police not bothering and more about the DA not bothering.

See https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/

Yes this is called anarcho-tyranny.

You generally can't shot them right off the bat, but in most places you can use non-deadly force to defend property, and if the thief responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then use deadly force.

In some states, if you reasonably fear that using non-deadly force to stop someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, or felonious property destruction would put you in danger of serious bodily harm, you can skip straight to deadly force.

Here's a summary from Eugene Volokh [1].

[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-u...

Thanks for posting something actually written by a lawyer.

It’s a CVS, they can decide to close that store if they want and it would be fine for them. The real issue is for small shops or for the employees who have to deal with this kind of bs. I live in SF and I avoid downtown and convenient stores for this exact reason. And Don’t tell me about public transport.

The real issue is for the people who need to or would like to live near a pharmacy/convenience store.

I'm wondering why the employees (especially the one in red) are putting themselves into physical danger over a $100B corporation's cosmetic supplies. Why even get involved? Just get physically away from them and start writing the paperwork. Isn't this what insurance is for?

Years and years ago I worked at a store where the official policy was don't confront shoplifters or try to stop them - they'd rather lose to merchandise than risk someone getting hurt plus it's a liability issue.

How about a snare or a net trap? They're non-lethal and restrain people until the authorities arrive. (Obviously I'm joking.)

You pay other criminals for enforcement, thus entrenching a crime culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com