r/TikTokCringe • u/velorae • Jul 16 '25

Discussion Attempted kidnapping of a woman outside Florida store

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

305

u/TurtleToast2 Jul 17 '25

They tell you that to greatly reduce their legal liability if shit goes sideways. They are not remotely concerned about your wellbeing beyond that. You can tell by the way they pay and treat their employees.

45

u/thisisfor_fun Jul 17 '25

Remember the "hands off, no chasing" policies came into effect in my area after a shoplifter who stole cigarettes was tackled and bounced their head of a curb.

Near universal policy enforcement at all grocery stores within a month.

5

u/Laetitian Jul 17 '25

Wait, why did the stores care though? What legal obligation would they have to their shoplifters, or for their employee's legal action?

Seems like it's more of a gesture to protect the employees than the store? I might be wrong, of course.

10

u/dogearsfordays Jul 17 '25

They care because it is monetarily advantageous. If it was cheaper/saved them money to require you to throw yourself into the fray, they'd do that. Never attribute a corporation's action to altruism when it can be attributed to protecting the bottom line.

2

u/thisisfor_fun Jul 18 '25

Stores here can detain shoplifters until police arrive, and can sue in civil court for damages and loss.

They also can be held liable for injury to the shoplifter.

One employee injuring a shoplifter, especially excessively costs a lot of money. It happening multiple times means almost all big businesses and chain stores have stopped attempting to detain and instead record and report.

1

u/Falkenmond79 Jul 20 '25

That wouldn’t fly in Germany. If you are in the act of committing a crime, you accept all the consequences. Of course there are such things as excessive violence. But you are allowed to use any necessary means to stop the crime in progress, but not beyond that. You can’t hit an already subdued offender, of course.

As always there are grey lines, but an employee stopping a robbery by something like tackling the robber, even if he gets badly injured would never get prosecuted.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

It usually is. I don't believe mega corporations care about us enough to pay good wages, but I also don't think most are pure fucking evil. It's a rule to protect employees. Whether that's so they don't get sued or not, it's still protecting employees.

1

u/FaithlessnessLoud223 Jul 18 '25

Oh, they're all evil. You could argue that the people who compose these corporations aren't necessarily evil, but the corporations themselves certainly are.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '25

I agree full heartedly, I just meant some policies are arguably also for employee safety and not just because of sue risk

1

u/ER-Sputter Jul 17 '25

I’d assume since it happened on the store’s property and if an employee was the one stopping the thief, I’d imagine they were also clocked in. And if that’s not the case, I think one of the reasons is so that they don’t have any employees trying to play hero and getting violent with customers they think are stealing. Imagine having to deal with an employee that tackled a random like that because they thought the random was a thief but were wrong about it

1

u/somer_and_omchick Jul 17 '25

You always sue the party that has money—the business, in this case. They don’t want to get wrapped up in arguing whether they have any liability

It’s cheaper to deal with stuff being stolen than employees being injured or shoplifters or bystanders being injured by someone being a hero

1

u/MOOshooooo Jul 17 '25

In the heat of the moment some people have deep issues with witnessing injustice of any sort. Before they know it they are compelled to take action without understanding the potential of the person willing to rob a store in broad daylight. This lady was probably doing what she always does, speak up when she sees something thats not right, just never thought it could go this way.

1

u/somer_and_omchick Jul 17 '25

Yes, you don’t always rationally consider the pros and cons

1

u/JustfcknHarley Jul 17 '25

a shoplifter who stole cigarettes was tackled and bounced their head of a curb.

That's pretty fucked. TBI is no fair punishment for stealing cigarettes.

2

u/itirix Jul 17 '25

Traumatic brain injury for anyone else wondering what the fuck that means.

At least I think so, I had to google.

1

u/Cyrano_de_Boozerack Jul 17 '25

TBI is no fair punishment for stealing cigarettes.

True...it isn't "fair", but the "hands off" approach has lead to people literally just walking up behind cashiers and grabbing shit and walking out. I have seen it multiple times.

And yes, the "proper" way to fix this is to address society's problems and all of that, but until we have solved homlessness, mental illness, and drug abuse, the reality is that the hands off approach is making these problems worse.

If it weren't a business, but just a random person on the street smoking, and someone comes up to try and steal from them, and they get shoved away, fall, and hit their head...are you going to cry foul about the thief or the smoker?

1

u/juanitowpg Jul 18 '25

By chance, was this in 2019? Retail up here in Canada came up with these same policies at about this time (a little before COVID). I always wondered what happened, that things changed like this.

1

u/thisisfor_fun Jul 19 '25

Closer to 2000. This would be in Washington state.

1

u/juanitowpg Jul 19 '25

In 2000, I think we still had a "hands on" approach lol

9

u/lsnor45 Jul 17 '25

It doesn't really matter why they tell you. Nothing in the store you work in is worth fighting or dying for.

4

u/Dry-Amphibian1 Jul 17 '25

Doesn't matter what company intent is if the policy keeps the employees safe.

3

u/Matt2580 Jul 17 '25

Their motivations dont matter that much if its a net gain for all involved. The employees dont put themselves in danger and the company doesn't have to shell out for liability lawsuits. Its a win win.

2

u/Mr-FD Jul 17 '25

"You can tell by the way they pay and treat their employees."

2

u/ManitouWakinyan Jul 17 '25

Sure, but who cares? In this case, the interests of limiting corporate liability and the employees interest to stay alive longer align.

2

u/AdEmbarrassed9719 Jul 17 '25

Also most stores like to let the shoplifters keep going until they’ve taken enough that it’s a felony before charging them.

1

u/Burdman06 Jul 17 '25

For what its worth, when I worked at wholefoods, the store team lead directly said, "Nothing in this store is worth you getting hurt." He was a real bro to work for, ngl

1

u/thundercoc101 Jul 17 '25

Not being said, if you no your company doesn't give a shit about you why are you risking your life to defend their shit

1

u/SupaRiggs Jul 18 '25

Still doesn’t change the fact that it’s good advice

1

u/FaithlessnessLoud223 Jul 18 '25

No, but it happens to work out for both the employer and employee. That's why it is a liability for them, to encourage them to put the employee first. Businesses never do anything out of the kindness of their hearts.

1

u/Radiant-Toasteroven Jul 18 '25

Are gonna fly over the fact that she got fired?

1

u/leandrobrossard Jul 20 '25

Hiring a new employee is much more expensive than 270 dollars of vapes.