A brazen smash-and-grab robbery in a Toronto mall has ignited a sparked debate about the effectiveness and role of security guards in such incidents. A video posted on Reddit shows a group of masked thieves smashing their way into a retail store while security guards stand passively by, watching the events unfold. The thieves rob the store and flee in single file, leaving viewers astonished at the lack of intervention.
The 30-second video captures the thieves breaking into the store and looting merchandise, all under the watchful eyes of nearby security personnel. Social media users quickly reacted, questioning the purpose of having guards on site if they are unableโor unwillingโto intervene.
โWhatโs the point of having security?โ one commenter asked, echoing the sentiment of thousands who upvoted similar remarks.
Another user sarcastically added, โBased on this, (the securityโs job is) to record the crime and little else. A random guy trying to trip a robber at the end did more than the security.โ
While some criticized the guardsโ lack of response, others explained the limitations of their role. User mr207 noted:
โThe security guy likely isnโt just standing there because he is afraid to do anything; heโs probably mandated not to physically interveneโฆ Attempting to stop [the robbers] likely results in the security guy losing his job. This is how lots of places are now.โ
Several other users referenced corporate policies and legal concerns that discourage physical intervention, as well as the potential liabilities companies face if guards are injured or harm suspects. Some argued that guards act mainly as a deterrent and to report incidents, not as enforcers. Others lamented the perception that criminals are becoming emboldened by such policies.
One user, AshingiiAshuaa, suggested that stricter consequences would deter such crimes:
โOn a case-by-case basis, your analysis is correct. But at a society level, itโs much cheaper to hammer these people on the spot. The savings come when you consider the uncommitted crimes that never occur because the criminals knowโฆ theyโll get manhandled and imprisoned.โ
Others disagreed, pointing out the risks to security guards. โWhy should someone making $20/hour risk their safety to protect insured merchandise?โ
Retail security has apprently evolved over the years, moving away from aggressive tactics. One commenter recalled the โwild westโ days of loss prevention, where suspected shoplifters were forcibly detained, sometimes leading to injuries and costly litigation. Today, many companies opt for a hands-off approach to minimize risk.
The debate highlights a complex issue: balancing employee safety, corporate liability, and crime deterrence in an era of increasingly bold thefts. While the video underscores the apparent vulnerability of retailers, it also raises questions about whether current policies adequately address the rise in organized retail crime.
