Best Buy Fires Two Employees Who Tackle Thief

[a kennedy]

BROOMFIELD, Colo. -- Two college students who tackled a shoplifter at a Best Buy in Broomfield have been fired.

Jared Bergstreser, 20, and Colin Trapp, 23, were fired Sunday, two weeks after they tried to stop two men fleeing the store at the FlatIron Marketplace.

When the students saw the men fleeing with armloads of merchandise, Bergstreser tackled one of the men.

"A gentleman came by us in a red shirt with a bunch of product in his hand. It was pretty obvious that he hadn't paid for it yet," Trapp said.

"I just kind of reacted. I wasn't thinking about it and followed the guy out the front door and tackled him," Bergstreser said.

As Bergstreser was struggling with the thief on the ground, Trapp ran over to help.

"We thought we had the situation under control. That's when he pulled a knife and began flailing it around wildly," Trapp said.

The man broke free and cut the store manager, who had come out to try to calm things down.

The two shoplifters escaped in an old light-green Pontiac driven by a woman, according to police. The car had a temporary license.

A police report said the two men got away with computer hard drives and other items. No arrests have been made in the theft, which occurred Aug. 1.

Trapp and Bergstreser said they feel they were wrongfully terminated for their actions on that day.

"It was just completely demoralizing. You think you have in your head what you know is right or wrong, what your parents instilled in you growing up as a child, and then to be reprimanded for that act is so sour and so sad," Trapp said.

"I think I did what I believed was right," Bergstreser added.

rest of the article: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/20446144/detail.html

[SheilaT]

1. At least some retail stores

as policy instruct employees not to try to stop someone fleeing with merchandise.

I recently worked part time for a major mall jewelry store chain and that sort of thing was covered very clearly in the training. Merchandise can be replaced. People can't.

The topic should have been covered in training or orientation.

[NYC Liberal]

2. Exactly. That is what INSURANCE is for!

I work in retail. Why anyone would put their life at risk for retail merchandise which isn't even theirs, is completely beyond me!

We have 4 or 5 plain-clothed LP guys walking around where I work anyway, so no need for me or any other employees to risk anything. I've seen them tackle people and stick them in a room we have for that purpose to wait for the cops to come. And believe me, I would not want to tango with some of the people I've seen get busted. A huge guy tried to run off with some product and when LP confronted him, he would NOT let go. It took 3 of them plus another 2 or 3 NYPD cops to take him down.

Like I said, I ain't putting myself at risk for that shit. It isn't even mine!

[rve300]

13. Policies like this have been around for years

My younger brother was a loss prevention officer for Walmart and was fired for the same thing about 7 years ago.
All it takes is on thief to win in court and all common sense goes out the window.

[TexasObserver]

22. The bigger worry is not injury to the perp, but to customers, or employees.

Knock down some old lady in the parking lot, break her hip in the process, and retrieving a $20 CD costs the store a half million dollars or more.

[grantcart]

3. This is standard procedure and makes sense

The company has insurance covering any loss from armed theft.


If employees make an attempted heroic effort then there is every chance that the thief will discharge a weapon and kill an employee or a shopper.

In this case a store manager was cut, had the theives been armed with guns the store manager and others would likely be dead.

[jobycom]

4. Here in Austin a sales clerk just shot a man for stealing a 12 pack.

Some guy grabbed a 12 pack and ran, and the clerk gunned him down from behind as he ran.

These no-chase policies are there for a reason. No one needs to die over a beer or some hard drives. Not the crook, not the chaser, not the innocent bystanders who get in the way of a desperate thief.

[Orrex]

6. When I worked at a 7-11 in south Austin

The official policy stated that if an employee detained or attacked someone who was in the process of shoplifting, the employee would be fired.

That was a while ago, and I don't know if the policy is still in place, but it always seemed like a good one to me.

[jobycom]

11. That's a normal policy. Insurance companies demand it. I'm sure it's Best Buy's policy.

[Tim01]

5. Corporate America is not a good place for assertive individuals.

Fill out the reports, buy stuff at Walmart, watch American Idol, do what you are told, let someone else handle the hard decisions.

[Historic NY]

7. WAM..I'm buying 14k worth of stuff from them tomorrow, I guess I should rip the off legally.

[wickerwoman]

8. Must be a huge liability risk for the store as well.

If the tacklers had broken the thief's arm for example, the thief would be able to sue the store.

[recoveringrepublican]

9. As it should be, I wouldn't want to be some innocent bystander if the guy had

been armed and all the employees managed to do was piss him/her off!

[Doremus]

10. Poor kid says he just reacted and the other one came out to help his friend.

They meant well. If this is their first infraction I think they deserve a warning.

Shame on Best Buy for their hardline stance.

[Orrex]

12. By "just reacting," they managed to get their manager cut

If they'd let the guy go, then it's likely that no one would have been injured.

[tj2001]

14. STUPID. You don't risk your life and limbs to save your boss a few bucks

[democracy1st]

15. great policy I don't have the numbers but quite a few employees have been

killed trying to stop criminals

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I have to agree, it's not worth hurting people to stop theft of property

Especially not from a huge chain store like Best Buy. If it was a small store with no insurance and the owner's livelihood depended on the merchandise being stolen then it would at least be kind of understandable.

[renate]

17. I think it's pretty harsh

They should have at least been given a warning and then offered jobs in the storeroom or something. I understand that there are policies against using force on shoplifters, and that those policies are there for the employees' protection (and for liability reasons, in case someone who hadn't actually shoplifted anything got hurt), but damn. In this job market, to fire people who risked injury if not their lives for the store? Harsh.

[EFerrari]

24. Harsh in this market. They're young. They needed to be retrained. n/t

[TexasObserver]

18. A company cannot risk a serious injury claim trying to save $100 of merchandise.

[krispos42]

19. The discussion in this thread is interesting.

And then we wonder why crime rates don't go down.

[TexasObserver]

21. Crimes rates have gone DOWN, not up.

It's a common theme promoted by the right, but it's untrue.

Crimes rates have gone DOWN, not up.

[krispos42]

23. Yeah, I know... I posted that exact same graph before

Doesn't change the fact that by letting them go, they will commit crime again and again until they are finally caught.


It's one thing if it's a robber against a gas station clerk. But a big store like that is full of able-bodied people.


Ah, well, I'm sure I'll be shouted down with "it's not worth it" comments. And maybe it's not.


Except that criminals like this will strike again and again until somebody does get hurt.

[TexasObserver]

25. You would agree it is the store's decision, not ours, whether to pursue shoplifters.

And would you agree that it makes little sense to put customers at risk as employees chase shoplifters through the store and the parking lot, wouldn't you?

The risk of injury is far greater than the benefit of catching someone who stole $20 worth of merchandise. It's a decision that is easy for the store, because the upside is tiny, and the downside is high. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to have a policy against chasing shoplifters.

Shoplifters are caught primarily by good observation of loss prevention personnel.

As far as crime goes, shoplifting is the least worry in the criminal justice system. The perps are marginally criminals. Yeah, it's theft and it's a crime, but it's usually a low dollar crime with no threat to persons, and that's how it should be treated.

[krispos42]

26. Yeah, it is their choice

I just wonder if the policy is penny wise and pound foolish. That we wind up paying more because don't nip these things in the bud. That we lose independence of action because we always worry about being sued by a crook. That we lose moral clarity because we say "yeah, it's wrong, but it's not worth it to try to stop".

That's all.

[TexasObserver]

27. I understand your concern.

I worry mainly about crimes of violence. By prosecuting too aggressively lesser crimes, we end up releasing early those convicted of greater crimes. I do not favor incarceration for many economic crimes, and favor decriminalization of many crimes. I favor probation, ankle bracelets and home confinement monitored by GPS for economic crimes, unless they're significant.

[krispos42]

28. This is why I want to see pot legalized

I'd rather have one pedophile in jail than a thousand potheads. I simply don't give a shit if people want to consume pot, as long at they don't try to operate heavy machinery or clean the gutters while high!


I figure for stuff like this the crooks should get maybe two weeks to a month in jail... enough to lose some pay and get scared of prison without actually turning them into hardcore criminals.

If it was home confinement, something longer, like a two or three month stint. That'll give them a massive case of cabin fever.

[TexasObserver]

29. You've hit on my favorite topic.

Decriminalization of marijuana is justified on every imaginable basis:

*It's insane to commit our police, prosecution, judicial, and prison resources to weed.

*It's a potential source of significant industy, exports, and revenues to citizens and governmental entities.

*It's safer and better for people than alcohol, tobacco, and many prescription drugs.

*It's simply not a threat to society.

[krispos42]

30. You got it

It's lingering puritannical bullshit as to why it's still illegal.


And I don't even do the stuff... it's not like I'm doing it for personal gain or anything. I'm just tired of seeing people freak out about it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. As someone whio has defended himself against such "heros" this doesn't surprise me

However when I disarmed the loss prevention fool and then dumped him on his face, he was clearly surprised.

[Toasterlad]

32. So, You're a Shoplifter?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. No, falsely accused a few times over the years

Most recently was a couple of years ago. Some incidents when photographing things as well. I also have been known to decline exit searches.

[paulsby]

31. typical poorly written article

referring to the suspects as "shoplifters" and the title (OP or article) as "thief".

they committed a theft, THEN cut somebody with a knife in attempts to escape. that makes them armed robbers not "shoplifters".

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[zbdent]

34. and then the people bitch about how the employees don't give a shit ...

well, if you do the right thing and get fired ... what incentive do you have?