Want money? WaWa will give it to you, no trouble

[Bang]

Clerk decided the robbery being perpetrated on him had better stop before something bad happens. He proceeded to thump the perp until he gave up on the idea.

Makes the news...in the stupidest way possible. WaWa fires the clerk, news interviews him, then reads a letter from WaWa hierarchy that he was being fired because he did not follow company policy of give them the money without resistance.

That amounted to an advertisement:

C'MON OVER AND ROB WAWA. IT'S EASY AND YOU WON'T GET HURT.

[joseywales]

Wawa's policy is identical to almost all retailers. Honestly, a policy to the contrary would open them up to all kinds of litigation, should a clerk be injured and killed during a robbery. Don't like it? Fight for insurance reform, or to change out those who wrote the rules. It's not Wawa's fault.

I have no affinity for Wawa, other then they are the best at what they do, except perhaps for Sheetz and I know a little about the business. Wawa stores in Florida took off so quickly, they had to fly employees from PA to work the stores, because they could not hire employees fast enough. Their first 7 locations there became their top 7 performing locations in the first year.

Early in my career, I handled live interactive security for retail sites and can tell you that we never advocated for clerks to fight crime. I can also tell you that armed clerks would not reduce retail crime. Let me say that again, armed clerks will not reduce retail crime. Fighting retail crime is about deterrence, not prevention. All you are doing is making some other store the easier target. Because most retailers do not promote clerks fighting crime, Wawa does not make itself an easier target, but there are options that can make a retailer less of a target.

I conducted in depth research on convenience store and workplace violence. My findings were...well, unbelievable actually. I read books where convicts were interviewed and asked what they feared most during a robbery:

- Black and white video cameras, with visible monitors and video tape in the store? Nah. they don't care
- Armed guards in the store? Nah, we'll just shoot it out with them and the guards usually have very little training or ability.
- Color cameras, showing color images on instore monitors and video tape. Bingo! Yatzee! These guys believe they can dodge the bullets and beat a B&W video, but they can never beat a color video in court and that's all they cared about.

[West Chester]

blah blah blah

Let me say that again, armed clerks will not reduce retail crime.

blah blah blah

You are quite wrong my interweb friend. How many gun shops get robbed during business hours when the clerks are armed. I can help you, very very very few.

Predators do not want to have any harm come to them so they avoid locations/ others who are able to cause harm.

If a robber walked into a convenience store and every clerk was armed they would not attempt to rob the location.

[Emptymag]

Wawa's policy is identical to almost all retailers. Honestly, a policy to the contrary would open them up to all kinds of litigation, should a clerk be injured and killed during a robbery. Don't like it? Fight for insurance reform, or to change out those who wrote the rules. It's not Wawa's fault.

I have no affinity for Wawa, other then they are the best at what they do, except perhaps for Sheetz and I know a little about the business. Wawa stores in Florida took off so quickly, they had to fly employees from PA to work the stores, because they could not hire employees fast enough. Their first 7 locations there became their top 7 performing locations in the first year.

Early in my career, I handled live interactive security for retail sites and can tell you that we never advocated for clerks to fight crime. I can also tell you that armed clerks would not reduce retail crime. Let me say that again, armed clerks will not reduce retail crime. Fighting retail crime is about deterrence, not prevention. All you are doing is making some other store the easier target. Because most retailers do not promote clerks fighting crime, Wawa does not make itself an easier target, but there are options that can make a retailer less of a target.

I conducted in depth research on convenience store and workplace violence. My findings were...well, unbelievable actually. I read books where convicts were interviewed and asked what they feared most during a robbery:

- Black and white video cameras, with visible monitors and video tape in the store? Nah. they don't care
- Armed guards in the store? Nah, we'll just shoot it out with them and the guards usually have very little training or ability.
- Color cameras, showing color images on instore monitors and video tape. Bingo! Yatzee! These guys believe they can dodge the bullets and beat a B&W video, but they can never beat a color video in court and that's all they cared about.

There's a convenience store not far from here that has a "wall" of 8.5x11 CLEAR, color printouts of thieves caught in the act of stealing/attempting to steal stuff - most have captions.
"This dummy is in the county jail because he thought he could sneak a bag of Doritios".

LOL

[donm]

You are quite wrong my interweb friend. How many gun shops get robbed during business hours when the clerks are armed. I can help you, very very very few.

And I suggest that there's a huge difference in the protective capability of an armed employee in a gun shop and an "armed" WaWa clerk. If I'm WaWa management, I certainly don't want them shooting it out to protect whatever small change they keep in the register. Huge liability on both sides of the counter.

The difference between B&W and color cameras is interesting. I'm astonished at the poor quality of most of the surveillance video from bank robberies. A lot of them still seem to use low resolution B&W cameras and videotape that was past its prime long, long ago. Especially considering the cost of HD cameras and digital recording equipment these days.

[Pilot321]

The difference between B&W and color cameras is interesting. I'm astonished at the poor quality of most of the surveillance video from bank robberies. A lot of them still seem to use low resolution B&W cameras and videotape that was past its prime long, long ago. Especially considering the cost of HD cameras and digital recording equipment these days.

Low return on investment. Banks lose MUCH more money from internal fraud than robberies, and that's where they put their resources.

[joseywales]

You are quite wrong my interweb friend. How many gun shops get robbed during business hours when the clerks are armed. I can help you, very very very few.

Predators do not want to have any harm come to them so they avoid locations/ others who are able to cause harm.

If a robber walked into a convenience store and every clerk was armed they would not attempt to rob the location.

I'm wrong? Take it up with these folks:

R.J Erickson
W.J Crow
J.D Bull
R.D Hunter
R. Swanson
US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, and Bureau of Labor Statistics
OSHA
G Warchol

Rosemary Erickson's Convenience Store Security at the Mellenium stated the following:

Improving cash control and lighting, reducing escape routes, and improving visibility, all had a positive relationship with reducing crime in a majority of t he studies. Increasing the number of clerks on duty also had a positive relationship in four of the studies. However, certain peripheral conditions may also contribute to the reduction. Armed guards were found effective in only one of ten studies performed. Cameras and video had a positive relationship in only two of the studies - based on her additional research and interviews, this was believed to be largely due to the fact that most of those systems were B&W.

Convicts who were interviewed, you know, those folks who actually carry out the crimes instead of trying to guess how it will go down, said they are not afraid of armed guards because they believe they can out shoot them. They didn't watch CSI to gather their information, they lived it. I love your comments, because they imply that robbers are intelligent, rational people. That being the case, why are they committing crimes??

I tell you what. I'm sure you are more knowledgeable than the almost 1 dozen authors and 2 dozen resources I used to conduct my research. But on the chance that other forum members don't have faith in your statement, please educate us all by pointing to your published work, or point us to the published research you used, so we that can review it and make our own informed decision.

I don't normally carry such an attitude on the forum, but calling me names based on my original statements is juvenile and I don't react well to that.

[TaePo]

...edited for brevity/content...

I don't normally carry such an attitude on the forum, but calling me names based on my original statements is juvenile and I don't react well to that.

I'm sorry, but unless there was a lot of edits done before you quoted him, the only name I saw was 'my interweb friend'. Though talking down to someone could be implied; being it is written, I wouldn't automatically assume that and ask for clarification. In any even, it falls short of name calling in my opinion.

As for the details of your argument (taken at face value as I have not researched it myself), it would seem to hold water. I wonder, however, if all retail employees were armed, allowed to use force (escalating up to deadly force if need be) to protect property, and did; would that not discourage most except the most brazen, drugged or 'crazy' robber?

They might not be afraid of a gun, because they know they seldom come across one 'in the field'. It is a false sense of security/bravado in a way. Unfortunately, companies have decided it is better to lose or give-up money than risking anything more and it is easier/cheaper to just pass on the cost to the consumer.

[joseywales]

I'm sorry, but unless there was a lot of edits done before you quoted him, the only name I saw was 'my interweb friend'. Though talking down to someone could be implied; being it is written, I wouldn't automatically assume that and ask for clarification. In any even, it falls short of name calling in my opinion.

As for the details of your argument (taken at face value as I have not researched it myself), it would seem to hold water. I wonder, however, if all retail employees were armed, allowed to use force (escalating up to deadly force if need be) to protect property, and did; would that not discourage most except the most brazen, drugged or 'crazy' robber?

They might not be afraid of a gun, because they know they seldom come across one 'in the field'. It is a false sense of security/bravado in a way. Unfortunately, companies have decided it is better to lose or give-up money than risking anything more and it is easier/cheaper to just pass on the cost to the consumer. I think it's the cost of the lawsuit if the employee gets hurt, or even when the suspect's family sues that deters stores from arming employees.

True enough on name calling. Perhaps, being dismissed as a blowhard is what irked me.

Neither my research, nor that of the authors, can ever be presumed to be all-exhaustive and there are always exceptions to the rule. I produced a 55 page article based on many hours of research of those far more knowledgeable than most folks, in addition to operating a system that was put in place by the one convenience store chain in the nation that monitored its own system. I always felt at least 3 sources were required, and I feel comfortable that I covered my bases when I wrote my paper (it was nearly 10 years ago).

Regarding arming all of the employees, we must first examine the level of aptitude and skill found in many of the folks working those jobs. Rarely are those jobs careers, so I'm not sure it's practical. That said, yeah I would guess a room full of armed people could be a deterrent. Criminal figuring even they are all horrible shots, I'm bound to get hit in the crossfire!

Now I will make statements that are opinion and not the result of research, although I based them on that research.

I would bet that an armed citizen in a convenience store is likely to deter a thief more so than an armed security guard. Why? Because convicts were not afraid of robbing a store with an armed guard, because they felt they could outshoot the guard. There’s a perception of guards that they can’t hit their ass with both hands. I’m not dumping on security guards, I’m just stating what I believe the thief’s perception of them is.

An armed citizen, however, is an unknown. Are they undercover or off duty LE? Are they well trained? I would think it would give them pause, if they even notice when they enter the store.

Also, I would guess that gun shops do not make good targets for several reasons, regardless of armed clerks or not. Looking at the list my research produced, gun shops have excellent lighting, one entrance/exit, close quarters, number of clerks all play in the gun shop’s favor. I only know one shop that had one clerk on duty, the owner. He’s closing his retail now because of all the hassle he gets from customers. I surmise that hassle would have been greatly reduced if he had at least one other person behind the counter.

Trying to apply reason and rational to criminals who posses neither is not the most productive way to spend one’s time. Guns, in my opinion, could be a deterrent, but they are more effective as a defense against the perpetrator. The ol’ racking of the 12 gauge in the middle of the night comes to mind. Best not to rely on movie theater dribble. Practice so you can hit your targets, have a plan, and you’ll live to educate others.

[Breadman03]

...and it is easier/cheaper to just pass on the cost to the consumer.

The couple hundred that may get stolen out of all the registers costs far less than an hour or two worth of attorney fees for a robbery that gets violent. Thus, less costs to pass onto the consumer.

I don't like the policy, but it really is best for costs. Additionally, the losses from internal theft costs more than those from robberies. That means that the cameras are a better deterrent for both forms of theft.