Lori Lightfoot Says Chicago Retailers Aren't Doing Enough to Defend Against Theft

[mystery-ak]

Lori Lightfoot Says Chicago Retailers Aren't Doing Enough to Defend Against Theft
Gerrard Kaonga - Yesterday 12:19 PM

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has accused stores of not taking adequate measures to prevent themselves from being victims of crime.

During a crime summit on Monday at the University of Illinois in Chicago, Lightfoot said she was disappointed with stores on Michigan Avenue, a popular shopping and tourist destination. She said they were not making security a priority and taking adequate measures to prevent theft.

Lightfoot said: "Some of the retailers downtown in Michigan Avenue, I will tell you, I'm disappointed that they are not doing more to take safety and make it a priority. For example, we still have retailers that won't institute plans like having security officers in their stores.

"Making sure that they've got cameras that are actually operational, locking up their merchandise at night, chaining high-end bags. These purses seem to be something that is attracting a lot of organized retail theft units."

Newsweek has contacted the Chicago Mayor's Office for comment.

more
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/lori-lightfoot-says-chicago-retailers-aren-t-doing-enough-to-defend-against-theft/ar-AARCl3e?ocid=msedgntp

[Kamaji]

The City of Chicago is, however, actively encouraging theft.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The retailers aren't doing enough.  They should shutter their stores in jurisdictions where government is not protecting private property rights.

[Kamaji]

The retailers aren't doing enough.  They should shutter their stores in jurisdictions where government is not protecting private property rights.

[ironhorsedriver]

And if they actually do defend; condemnation, court trials, racism! No win for them. Shutter the stores, and let the sheep suck it up.

[LegalAmerican]

The City of Chicago is, however, actively encouraging theft.

Yes! And if any police try to stop it with force....THEY will be the ones in jail.   This is the same as an ABUSER saying, I will hit you MORE IF YOU CRY, WHEN I HIT YOU!   Hell if you do, hell if you don't.  These are really DEMONS in disguise, posing as humans.  Blame everyone but the criminals and HERSELF.   

[andy58-in-nh]

Do you really want to stop looting and theft?

Shoot them in the act.

If you think that's cruel, look what we are dealing with when there's no perceived risk of harm or punishment for criminals.

[Fishrrman]

Andy, of course, is correct in his post above.

BUT... unlikely this will start happening soon in the blue cities in the blue states.

What I think COULD happen will be a complete "design-paradigm" change in urban and perhaps even suburban retail businesses.

That is to say, if you can't stop the threat that exists outside, you can re-design your retail businesses' architecture in order to prevent such threats from getting INSIDE.

How I believe this will be achieved:

First, no more plate glass storefronts. Storefronts will be "solid" -- brick, concrete, steel, stone. In many cases, all that will be there is a sign with the store's logo.

There -might- be display windows, but they'll be of thick glass that can't readily be broken, with steel shutters that can be closed quickly. And there will be solid walls behind them, with doors sufficiently sold/strong enough to prevent entry in the event the heavy outward glass is breached. You won't be able to get into the business "through the windows".

These businesses will also have "airlock-style" entrances, with TWO doors that shoppers must pass to enter. One person at a time, monitored by a guard at all times. At least one of the doors will be heavy steel with reinforced barriers that will make breaking-and-entry (even using a vehicle to try to smash one's way through) all-but impossible.

The exits will also be "airlocked" and monitored, with one-way doors to prevent reverse entry, with sufficient modifications to allow rapid egress in an emergency situation.

If you can't change the people "outside", you CAN change how they get "inside".
(and all you have to do is look around these days to realize that not much is going to be attempted to "change the people outside" -- probably not even possible)

How's that hit ya...?

[andy58-in-nh]

Andy, of course, is correct in his post above.

BUT... unlikely this will start happening soon in the blue cities in the blue states.

What I think COULD happen will be a complete "design-paradigm" change in urban and perhaps even suburban retail businesses.

That is to say, if you can't stop the threat that exists outside, you can re-design your retail businesses' architecture in order to prevent such threats from getting INSIDE.

How I believe this will be achieved:

First, no more plate glass storefronts. Storefronts will be "solid" -- brick, concrete, steel, stone. In many cases, all that will be there is a sign with the store's logo.

There -might- be display windows, but they'll be of thick glass that can't readily be broken, with steel shutters that can be closed quickly. And there will be solid walls behind them, with doors sufficiently sold/strong enough to prevent entry in the even the heavy outward glass was breached. You won't be able to get into the business "through the windows".

These businesses will also have "airlock-style" entrances, with TWO doors that shoppers must pass to enter. One person at a time, monitored by a guard at all times. At least one of the doors will be heavy steel with reinforced barriers that will make breaking-and-entry (even using a vehicle to try to smash one's way through) all-but impossible.

The exits will also be "airlocked" and monitored, with one-way doors to prevent reverse entry, with sufficient modifications to allow rapid egress in an emergency situation.

If you can't change the people "outside", you CAN change how they get "inside".
(and all you have to do is look around these days to realize that not much is going to be attempted to "change the people outside" -- probably not even possible)

How's that hit ya...?

We have a choice.

We can live like citizens, with rights, responsibilities, and consequences for our actions.

Or we can live like subjects, subordinate to those who at their pleasure will protect us - or not - and decide what we can or must do, or else leave us to the designs of others, for good or for worse.

This has been the state of humanity forever.

America was founded upon the model of ordered liberty and responsible citizenship within the context of a constitutional republic. It worked. It worked, at least until we allowed moral corruption and short-term convenience to convince us that government might provide something more than a bulwark against force and fraud, but instead serve as a provider of wealth and security... at someone else's expense, always. We chose to pretend that government might ever create wealth instead of appropriate it, because the human desire for the unearned knows few boundaries. 

If you own something that you have earned by right and by honest effort, you also have a right to protect it, by force, if necessary. In a Republican form of government, citizens elect representatives and also create entities with delegated police power to enforce the security of human rights and property. When the police no longer will protect you and when your government no longer offers to secure your property, it is not only your right, but your responsibility to do so yourself.

So: do you really want to stop organized theft?

Good. Shoot the looters. 

[Smokin Joe]

We have a choice.

We can live like citizens, with rights, responsibilities, and consequences for our actions.

Or we can live like subjects, subordinate to those who at their pleasure will protect us - or not - and decide what we can or must do, or else leave us to the designs of others, for good or for worse.

This has been the state of humanity forever.

America was founded upon the model of ordered liberty and responsible citizenship within the context of a constitutional republic. It worked. It worked, at least until we allowed moral corruption and short-term convenience to convince us that government might provide something more than a bulwark against force and fraud, but instead serve as a provider of wealth and security... at someone else's expense, always. We chose to pretend that government might ever create wealth instead of appropriate it, because the human desire for the unearned knows few boundaries. 

If you own something that you have earned by right and by honest effort, you also have a right to protect it, by force, if necessary. In a Republican form of government, citizens elect representatives and also create entities with delegated police power to enforce the security of human rights and property. When the police no longer will protect you and when your government no longer offers to secure your property, it is not only your right, but your responsibility to do so yourself.

So: do you really want to stop organized theft?

Good. Shoot the looters.

In the street riots of the 60s, the National Guard was deployed, curfews established, and violators and looters were shot.

Funny thing about that. Once deployed, the BS stopped.

This crap has been handled all wrong, with carte blanche (no pun intended, maybe carte noir..) given to the lawless. It doesn't take long to figure out that if some can get away with it, all can, if they are in a large enough crowd.

Not applying the law is definitely NOT a good approach to Law and Order. The political (racism) of the prosecutors involved keeps this going, the reticence of the Mayors and others to call upon the resources (often also due to racism) to stop this, is what is most responsible for the notion that those committing these acts can get away with it.