Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101
I don't think legalities have anything to do with when responsibility ends and starts. In this case, I believe it to be moreso that line when the number of break-ins starts to become higher than normal. Is that happening in this case? Who knows... two a day just seems low to me, but I'm used to Calgary, not Nova Scotia. And then how long do you keep warning people for? If a day goes by with no break-ins, is your responsibility absolved? What happens if they start again a week later, is it still Futureshops fault?
I'm not sure where you see in the article that FS managers know about the problem. It's a very one sided poorly written article where futureshop doesn't even comment.
|
The article says the police are frustrated because FS has been informed and isn't doing anything. I suspect they wouldn't be frustrated over one event. It also quotes the police as saying "It has becoming somewhat of a trend" which is admittedly ambiguous as to whether it 'is becoming' or 'has become'. Nonetheless, it says their community relations officer 'has, in the past, spoken directly with that store' which is suggestive that it has been an ongoing problem. It also says that 'someone is watching the stores and following people who buy big ticket items' which is not suggestive of two isolated incidents, but certainly makes it sound likes it is an observed pattern.
The article is not well written. Still it's suggests that this is part of an ongoing pattern of specific criminal activity which has been noticed and pointed out to the store. In that case FS should be informing customers that they are being specifically targeted. If it's not the case, then yeah, I agree it's not their bad.