Ok Shirley, I understand that wasn't exactly what the police spokesperson said, but the feeling was there. Cheez, get off my back on this stuff. Go do your own blog.
But to get to the isue, Monday, June 27th was a sad and somewhat alarming day for the good citizens of Little Rock. Per the local paper headline, actually page one in the “B” section, “Police say security is lacking in eateries”.
The local paper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, explains it quite well. “After a rash of aggravated robberies at fast-food restaurants in June, police in Little Rock say the businesses can take steps to be less vulnerable.”
Well, would you good and ‘at risk’ citizens, care to guess what the local police suggest? No need, I’ll enlighten you. “… Little Rock police Lt. Dana Jackson said that’ the stores could do more to prevent the robberies altogether. While nearly every restaurant in the city has some form of video surveillance system, Jackson said a security guard or off-duty police officer is probably more of a deterrent because its human nature to choose the path of least resistance. Why go there, [where there is a security guard?], when you can go two blocks over and 10 blocks down’, Jackson said.
Now lets just review what the official LR police suggestions are:
- Hire an off-duty police officer to protect the restaurant. (We can’t protect you ‘on-duty’, ‘so hire a cop’ at extra cost when ‘off-duty’ and we’ll teach those miscreants a thing or two. Well actually, just chase ‘em ‘down the street’.)
- Encourage the miscreant to go rob an eatery down the road. (“Actually 2 blocks over and 10 blocks down.”) This would fall under the general business principle of ‘beggar thy neighbor’s competitive franchise’, or more accurately ‘burgle or rob thy competitor’. Could this fall under the ‘aiding and abetting a criminal offense’ law?).
- Hire a non-police security guard. (I wonder if Barney is available since Mayberry is ‘off the air’ so to speak? For only a small monthly fee I would agree to hold the bullet for the security guard). You can’t just totally ignore this last option. A Mr. Todd Armstrong who has his own security agency, SES Group, affirms that “But the presence of a guard ‘usually get results’, he said”. (The adverb ‘usually’ in front of ‘gets results’ does give some cause for concern.)
Either to incite citizen concern or to warn them away from “eateries”, the following anecdote was given. “An employee of a Subway that was robbed June 18 said ‘there had been no training for such an even before it happened’. The employee,…, with one other employee when a black man walked in. During the robbery, the man held the knife to the employee and told the other to get money out of the register. ‘The [other employee] working with me just completely freaked out. Employees don’t always know the right thing to do, and it could have cost me my life’. When the man came back the next day in the middle of the employee’s morning shift looking for surveillance tapes, the employee quit, citing fears of a ‘third visit’.”
My first thought was that the miscreant had to be ‘eat up with the dumbs’. Even if the police didn’t already have the surveillance tapes, returning to the ‘scene of the crime’ seems just a little dumb. You know, later line-up IDs and all of that.
Secondly, you would think that in the middle of the morning shift that the cook would have come rushing at the perp swinging a meat clever or pan of hot fry grease or something.
Thirdly, the newly unemployed employee should got to Hip-Hop Sportswear and apply for a job. They know how to handle perps at that place of business. (See blog titled “Do the Little Rock Police Suggest You Ensure That the Robber Isn’t a Killer, Before You Do What the Robber Demands?”)
I guess that I should go get my ‘concealed weapon carry permit’ unless I totally swear and avow to never enter another fast food restaurant. Apparently "Fast Foodery" has become dangerous in more ways then just caloric.
No comments:
Post a Comment