Halifax woman fails to understand the meaning of personal responsibility

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm really surprised how few people see Future Shop as having any responsibility in this. They were conscious of the fact that their customers were being specifically targeted for theft and chose not to make a policy of informing them. That seems like a pretty clear shirking of social responsibility to me. Perhaps they have no legal culpability, but they're definitely socially irresponsible.

They are supposed to know what items are stolen from Best Buy customers in a different area??

Futureshop has ZERO blame in this case imo. If you need to tell people to not leave a laptop in plain sight there is something wrong.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm really surprised how few people see Future Shop as having any responsibility in this. They were conscious of the fact that their customers were being specifically targeted for theft and chose not to make a policy of informing them. That seems like a pretty clear shirking of social responsibility to me. Perhaps they have no legal culpability, but they're definitely socially irresponsible.

Common sense dictates you don't leave your purse on the passenger seat and laptop in the open. Like what happened to personal responsibilty for ones actions. Malls and the police are always reminding shoppers to store thier valuables in a trunk while shopping. If they are not listening to that what makes you so sure Future Shops message is going to change things.

[missdpuck]

Now this is why I dumped fotze for Dion . Jeez.

[Superflyer]

Sure FS has a little responsibility in this but what are they supposed to do with out ruining their business? The one thing that is missing from the article is how many thefts can be linked back to that FS and over how long. It could be like 6 over a year, that is one every two months, so they are supposed to tell every customer to not be an idiot because they may be the lucky customer for this two month period?

[ricosuave]

^ wha? FS has NO responsibility IMHO

[flames_fan13]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm really surprised how few people see Future Shop as having any responsibility in this. They were conscious of the fact that their customers were being specifically targeted for theft and chose not to make a policy of informing them. That seems like a pretty clear shirking of social responsibility to me. Perhaps they have no legal culpability, but they're definitely socially irresponsible.

Even if they warned her, it most likely would have gone in one ear and out the other. I work as a valet in vancouver and always advise people to remove their valuables from the car and specifically mention their cell phones and cameras. And 90% of the time they'll come back down and say I left my cell phone in the car. When people are buying stuff they aren't interested in listening to advice but just to get their stuff and go.

[flames_fan13]

Originally Posted by JD

Well what good would hiding the laptop have done anyway?

Chances are if people don't see anything valuable in the car they'll leave it alone and go to the next one. Leave it in sight of everyone and you are just tempting thieves to break in.

[BlackArcher101]

Didn't the article say this was the second time it happened in that day... then the article calls it a rash of thefts...

I think most people that say Futureshop had some responsbility are thinking there were a large number of break-ins. In reality, it appears to be only a small numbers and really hard to say if even the futureshop was being targetted directly.

I mean really, it happened at one other Best Buy and twice at this Futureshop. How can that be called a trend? I bet more cars than that are broken into in one day at any mall parking lot in Calgary... or LRT.

[JohnnyB]

I'm not saying FS is legally responsible, but when did responsibility end at the boundaries of what is legally mandated? And certainly the woman also bears responsibility for her actions and ought to have been more careful. Still, the article makes it out that the FS managers are aware that their customers, particularly those buying the type of product she did, are being specifically targeted by criminals and they are aware of how the thefts are being performed, and how they can be prevented. The police have seen fit to address the issue with FS and one theft of that type had already happened that day. In a situation like this there is a social and moral obligation to inform a customer that they are likely going to be targeted by criminals, and how it can be easily avoided.

Informing customers of this will in no way do harm to their business either. Customers would appreciate the helpful action. What is more harmful to a business is showing disregard for customers simply not sharing that kind of information with them when it can have a direct affect on them.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm not saying FS is legally responsible, but when did responsibility end at the boundaries of what is legally mandated? And certainly the woman also bears responsibility for her actions and ought to have been more careful. Still, the article makes it out that the FS managers are aware that their customers, particularly those buying the type of product she did, are being specifically targeted by criminals and they are aware of how the thefts are being performed, and how they can be prevented. The police have seen fit to address the issue with FS and one theft of that type had already happened that day. In a situation like this there is a social and moral obligation to inform a customer that they are likely going to be targeted by criminals, and how it can be easily avoided.

Informing customers of this will in no way do harm to their business either. Customers would appreciate the helpful action. What is more harmful to a business is showing disregard for customers simply not sharing that kind of information with them when it can have a direct affect on them.

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.

[JohnnyB]

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.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

In a situation like this there is a social and moral obligation to inform a customer that they are likely going to be targeted by criminals, and how it can be easily avoided.

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read on CP.

Get one thing straight: They're running a business, not a community watch program, and as such, the responsibility ends there.

Unbelievable.

[Muta]

The issue wasn't whether Future Shop was socially responsible.

It's why someone would choose to blame a legally non-responsible entity for their own (severe) lack of common sense.

Future Shop does NOT owe this lady anything. She's grasping for straws at a chance to lay blame on somebody else for her own misfortunes.

Perhaps she can explain why she chose to NOT listen to her kid - a 10 year old with a simple request - but has the audacity to listen to herself when it becomes convenient.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Get one thing straight: They're running a business, not a community watch program, and as such, the responsibility ends there.

And when I'm leaving the grocery store, I'm not running a "hold the door open" program for the person behind me, so I don't bother holding the door.

Really now folks, it's not a big deal. Future Shop doesn't owe this woman a wood nickel, but if they know it is a problem, I'm sure the staff can spare the oxygen to say a single sentence to a customer who just dropped 2 grand in the store.

She's already bought the replacement computer somewhere else, so they lost it. Too bad.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And when I'm leaving the grocery store, I'm not running a "hold the door open" program for the person behind me, so I don't bother holding the door.

Really now folks, it's not a big deal. Future Shop doesn't owe this woman a wood nickel, but if they know it is a problem, I'm sure the staff can spare the oxygen to say a single sentence to a customer who just dropped 2 grand in the store.

She's already bought the replacement computer somewhere else, so they lost it. Too bad.

If you have to tell then that then it's a lost cause. The vast majority of Canadians would have put that laptop in thier trunk or at least hidden it from view when off to shop in another store. If she did either most here would have had sympathy for her - including me. It's a shame she didn't listen to her son.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And when I'm leaving the grocery store, I'm not running a "hold the door open" program for the person behind me, so I don't bother holding the door.

Really now folks, it's not a big deal. Future Shop doesn't owe this woman a wood nickel, but if they know it is a problem, I'm sure the staff can spare the oxygen to say a single sentence to a customer who just dropped 2 grand in the store.

She's already bought the replacement computer somewhere else, so they lost it. Too bad.

I don't think they lost any money. It's not like they refunded the woman's purchase. If she's reimbursed, it would be from the credit card company, not Futureshop.

[OBCT]

Curious article. Bottom line, mama could do well to get clued in by her 5th grade child.

...that can't be good.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And when I'm leaving the grocery store, I'm not running a "hold the door open" program for the person behind me, so I don't bother holding the door.

Really now folks, it's not a big deal. Future Shop doesn't owe this woman a wood nickel, but if they know it is a problem, I'm sure the staff can spare the oxygen to say a single sentence to a customer who just dropped 2 grand in the store.

She's already bought the replacement computer somewhere else, so they lost it. Too bad.

Yeah, whatever dude, they can do it if they want, the part that bothers me is someone saying there's an obligation.

You think FS is a bunch of jerks? Tough luck, they've done nothing wrong.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

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.

Of course it suggests it's an ongoing criminal activity... because it happens everywhere!!!!

To touch on a few of your points where you say the article says the police are frustrated because FS isn't doing anything. Take a look at that quote again. It's not from anyone affiliated with the police, it's actually the woman in question talking about the police and FS. Hardly credible at all. Besides, does it make sense at all? Sure sounds like the police are the ones shedding responsibility moreso than FS.

You sure do use the word suggestive. How you get any evidence of a trend from any comments in that article is beyond me. The fact a community relations officer has been in contact with the store does not contribute at all to a trend.... it's their job. It's what they do, problem or no problem.

This women is playing the media to change peoples' opinions on the evil empire that is Futureshop. What really irks me is this line from the story "Halifax Regional Police arrived and did their best to comfort Ms. Covert’s sobbing son." This women first makes an outrageous claim, but in the process of losing her cool, she proceeds to make her own child uncomfortable enough to start crying. And then the police consoles the child, not her. She was probably still going off about how Futureshop is the bad one and she's owed everything. At least that's what the story suggests to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't think they lost any money. It's not like they refunded the woman's purchase. If she's reimbursed, it would be from the credit card company, not Futureshop.

Yeah, but the article says she ordered a replacement from Future Shop and canceled that order when she found the same thing at another store for the same price.