Employee stops thief, but gets fired

well the good news for Babcock is that Whitewater may need a new police chief soon! (see the articles "Blogger keeps a watchful eye on Whitewater" and "City officials seek blogger's identity").

you cannot leave Sams club w/o showing you receipt and they will count your items. so why would it be wrong to stop a shoplifter if they grabbed something- who could they sue the store if youre stealing something- oh proshika guy did.

so should we sue SAMs because they Think we are shoplifting cause theyre checking are reciept??

i thought the candy by the register was for you to quicly pick up an pay for as implulse buy. i didnt think it was like the candy you recieve when you go out to eat at a restaurant. cool the price on label must just mean if you want to leave them a tip

doglover- you may be correct that theyll be the next target(haha) for liquer theft for the underage now that the liquer on court street is all locked up

well i guess " get your free mounds candy bar" doesnt only apply to mounds pet food store now!!!!!

deviladvocate- article reads it was in the shopping cart at one time and then "gone" into her bag as seen on the camera. seems he has a right to ask why it is in your bag now. unless her cart became overfull and nowhere is to put it which i doubt she can really use that argument. maybe she planned on putting it back after it was in her purse. doubt that to but it would still be attempted shoplifting it she put in purse then back on shelf if she maybe suspected she was seen by security. and since she was already caught on tape doing it once before he definatly has rght to check her

devilsadvocate- it seems the"security guard" be the one trained for these cases especially since her is the one WATCHING the shoppers.

true gayprimer- i can see them going to court and "because i am i minor and a minority (girl) I should get off cause i didnt know what i was doing bla bla bla "

oky i get it it is a SUPER target. i recall driving by one in san antonio TX area and thought what next a super tacobell too

woodmans gave rewards to ANY one was seen shoplifting and caught(employee or customer)

how stupid to fire THE SECURITY guard for catching her stealing. I guess she should have been turned in instead. but i believe they have to be caught red handed(APPARENTLY ONLY BY SUPERVISOR in this case) in order to arrest not sure if just video is enought to convict unless it is a few sure shot of her. whatis the point of a security quard if they cant catch somebody. guess the supervisor should be the security guard@!!! he was trying to be nice and hopefully scare the poo out of her and maybe it wont happpen again.

didnt know target sold booze

If a SECURITY GUARD doesn't have the authority to stop a theft from a store what the hell are they there for? I've worked as a security guard and I know that there are certain chains of command and protocol that must be followed but this is ridiculous!

tjncj, thanks for the info on Dyson.

seabee, I take offense to the "stupid comment" remark. one can only wish to be as "bright" as you seem to think you are.

This particular story has always been about the corporate policy, not he law.
And not about moral decisions.
Corporate policies as they relate to many scenarios are usually written by detached legal wonks in a one size fits all vocabulary.
A lot of common sense handling of similar situations went out the door with the mom and pop retail establishments.
Welcome to the big box world.
Sometimes lower prices come at the expense of common sense.

True, there are a number of alternative ways this could have been handled. Trying to "spook" her into ditching the alcohol is one.

I truly do admire and respect an employee who does his/her level best to prevent or address theft and underage posession of contraband such as alcohol and tobacco. I am disappointed if such actions cost someone his/her job.

That having been said, we all have laws and rules we must obey. In recent months I have seen a lot of discussion covering a lot of topics on this site. One that comes to mind is the towing policy in a nearby police jurisdiction. As a cop, I can fully imagine that some of the officers in that department disagree vehemently with the policy. Yet, they have to abide by it. Failing to do so can result in disciplinary action.

If I received information while on duty from a retail employee that a specific person was reasonably suspected of being in posession of stolen goods or contraband, I would stop that person and investigate. There are some possible exceptions to that based on court precedent. In general, though, a complainant who is identifiable, giving me specific information, would be reason enough for me to make the stop and check it out. And, according to my manager friend, there would be no repercussions for the employee who called that in.

Perhaps, in hindsight, the employee in this instance would have considered that option. Perhaps Target management will re-evaluate their decision in this case, especially given the immunity offered by Wisconsin statute.

Once Mr, Babcock stopped this girl in the store's aisle and inquired if she had the bottle of alcohol and she admitted to having concealed it inside of her bag, he should have taken the girl to the security office, called the manager on duty and called the police. Once a loss prevention person makes contact with a customer and questions them about unpaid merchandise, they cannot hide the customer contact from the store's management team and keep it 'low key'. If Mr. Babcock was not authorized by Target to stop a person for shoplifting their merchandise, maybe he should have handled it by simply 'spooking' the girl in a non-confrontational way into removing the bottle from her bag before she left the store. If he handled it this way, I bet he would still be employed by Target. Retail stores are hit hard every day by shoplifters of all ages and they must have strong policies in place to protect themselves from lawsuits.

OK, I've been watching all of this now for a few days, and talked with someone I know who manages a large department store in a large city, and who has a very strong knowledge of this store's policies. So, I'll address a few points here.

First, as has been intimated by others, Wisconsin Retial Theft State Statute 943.50(3) reads, in part, "Any merchant, merchant's adult employee or merchant's security agent who acts in good faith in any act authorized under this section is immune from civil or criminal liability for those acts." And, the Statute does authorize said persons to detain the suspect "in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time to deliver the person to a peace officer, or to his or her parent or guardian in the case of a minor." It also allows said employee to "release the detained person prior to the arrival of a peace officer or parent or guardian."

So, Target would be immune to civil or criminal liability for its employee confronting a suspected shoplifter.

Secondly, 943.50(1m) makes it a violation if a person "Intentionally conceals merchandise held for resale."

Therefore, yes, putting the merchandise in a personal bag, backpack, etc., seems to fit that statute.

Finally, section 125.07 (1)(a)3 states that "No adult may knowingly permit or fail to take action to prevent the illegal consumption of alcohol beverages by an underage person on premises owned by the adult or under the adult's control." This statute seems to apply only to consumption (versus posession) on the premises by the underage person.

My initial reaction was that a Target employee would be in violation of this section by failing to take action against an underage person shoplifting alcohol. Seems I was incorrect, which is why I always research the statutes before I address them here.

Keep in mind that these are Wisconsin laws, which vary from state to state. Target's policy is possibly written irrespective of the immunity offered here because it is not the case in all states.

It is my UNDERSTANDING from talking with my manager friend that nothing in the store's policies would prevent an employee from providing information (including vehicle & license) to police for investigation.

There is a happy medium here seabee, and many local business' that are doing well see that, and are successful because of it.

Show me a business that doesn't chase the "almighty dollar" and I'll show you charity. Typical stupid sentiment from somebody that has never owned anything larger than a lemonade stand.

thank you bizowner and vcf847. I agree with your comments. I wish more businesses were there for the "good of the people" than chasing the "almighty dollar". Seems to me the cost of a frivolous lawsuit, should one be filed by the teen's parent's, vs. the cost of shoplifting 4 $500 Dyson vacuum cleaners, alcohol and virtually anything under than $25 would be a wash at the end of the day. If they improved their surveillance system, pursued every shoplifter, and had the cooperation to prosecute to the "full extent of the law" people would NOT shoplift due to the arrest/conviction. who knows anymore. this is absurd and an embarrassment to this country. maybe I'm going a little extreme, but when people are afraid to stand up for what's right because the criminals always win, it's hopeless to have any integrity or pride in doing what's right.

This is a rebuttal to the last comment posted by mydesk. Yes, Babcock without a doubt did the right thing. Yes, he did not follow the rules or the law however Mr. Babcock made a judgement call and did the best he could under the circumstances. Target SHOULD NOT have put Babcock in that position by having a lousy policy and not having the proper staffing in place to handle the incident. No staff was on hand who was authorized to stop her; where were they? Does this mean when there is not an authorized manager on duty that any and all 16 year old kids should come into the store and steal Target blind. mydesk asks the question, How do we know that the girl was not taking the alcohol for her father. Are you serious? Now you are fabricating a story suggesting that she was stealing the acohol for her father. We'll I will go out on a limb and assume that she was not stealing the alcohol for her father. Then you even suggest that she might be beaten by her father when he got a call from Babcock. Get real, unless you have first hand knowledge of this, why would you even suggest such a thing? Then you distort the truth by saying it was the third time that he "saw" her taking a bottle off the shelf when it fact it was the second time that he saw it on video tape and the first time was after she had left the store. There are not alot of unanswered questions only a few bloggers distorting the truth. I do not know Mr. Babcock but we need more people like him to stand up and do the right thing!

I do not think ANY retails stores, super or regular, should sell liquor. Keeping liquor in a separate area, where people coming in and out are easily watched, would be safer for everyone.

This man should be applauded and recognized for his efforts in handling this situation perfectly. He notified the person responsible for her safety, her father. The parent may have not known his daughter had a problem. Now the parent can handle the situation.

Where is the comfort and safety of that girl if she was to drive drunk from drinking what she stole? In that case, I think Target should be libel. Target is only protecting themselves, not their customers with their store policies.

Did Mr Babcock really do the right thing? He was a former police officer, he should have known to follow rules and the law. He called her father, how does he know she wasn't taking the alcohol for him? Did he know for a fact that she would not be beaten by her father after receiving a phone call like that? This was the third time he saw her take a bottle off the shelf and conceal it in her purse. Why didn't he report her the first time to the person in charge? A lot of unanswered questions if you ask me.

it's a sad day when the criminals win. seems to be an every day occasion now. frivolous lawsuits (such as the suit where Prochazka was burglarizing the Doctor's house and was shot)should be banned. "ambulance chasing" attorneys should be disbarred and America can return to being a great country to live, work and play. ahhh there's an American Dream.

As a small business owner I think Mr. Babcock did exactly the right thing in stopping that young girl from walking out the door with alcohol, getting drunk and hurting herself or someone else drinking and driving. Think about it people a 16 year old stealing alcohol and he's the bad guy.

If Target is so concerned about following policy do they have a policy to have someone on staff during all hours they are open who is authorized to stop and question a shoplifter. The fact is there are too many lawyers and everyone is so concerned about lawsuits etc that we are missing the point and that is Target should have had someone there at all times who is authorized to stop a shoplifter so as to not put Mr. Babcock in that position to begin with. I just went into that Target store in L. Geneva recently but knowing what I know about this event I will not shop or support Target after treating Mr. Babcock this way. Whoever was suppose to be in charge should be the one being held accountable.

Amazing the discussion on this one. It is ridiculous the stance companies now take on theft. We have all but given people the o.k. to go ahead and steal things. No wonder costs continue to rise. As for any of you out there who have spoken negatively of Mr. Babcock or downplayed his role as a security officer at Target, let me say this. First off, why hire a security officer if you are going to give them no authority. Secondly, although it is not clear from the story, there could have been two reasons Babcock did not stop her the first time. 1) he did not see her put the bottle in her bag in person. He may have suspected it but was uncertain and observed it later on the tape. This would explain one reason why he did not stop her the first time. 2) Maybe he was following company policy, but the second incident made him realize that Target's company policy only cares about Target's reputation and not the safety and well-being of society.
Additionally, I know Dean Babcock. He has more education and experience in handling a situation like this than the entire midwest regions management team at Target combined. I can guarantee you that the way Babcock handled it was with professionalism and courtesy. But in the same sense he wanted to drive a point home. I am also sure for Babcock is was less about the theft and more about the teen with alcohol. Lets interview the father of the teen and see what his take is. Many of you are probably thinking if Babcock is so experienced and educated, why is he a "security guard" at a Target Store. The Gazette failed to ever ask Babcock what made him handle the situation as he did? They failed to ask him what he did for a living before Target? Mr. Babcock is retired. Oh and did I mention he retired after over two decades as a "Police Officer". I think he can identify when a theft is taking place. He should be training your managers in Loss Prevention. Good Job Target! Fire and asset whom I am sure you were grossly underpaying! There should be more Babcock's in the world willing to stand up for what is right, not what is politically correct or saves the company's butt!

Some of you have commented on how Babcock should have waited until the juvenile got past the check out to stop her. Targets policy does not even allow employees to do this. Only a supervisor can. So it didnt matter whether Babcock approaches her where she was or in the parking lot. Either way he would violate Target's rediculous policy. I think a few members of MADD will be having some meetings with Target execs in the near future. Isnt Lake Geneva the same community that just had a 16 year old drunk driver kill a man behind the wheel?

Here's Walmarts New Policy!!!!

A union-backed group critical of Wal-Mart unveiled this week a company policy that bypasses Sam Walton's zero-tolerance stance against shoplifting. Thieves now will be prosecuted if they lift merchandise worth more than $25 - or if they don't identify themselves or are violent.

"We're concentrating our resources on organized theft rings and high-dollar losses," Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said. "It simply is not efficient to prosecute most petty shoplifters at the expense of those high-dollar items."

mcs...it does state in the article that he thought he could handle the situation without his bosses finding out. Read it again. Just for the record...Target does not fire someone for just one misconduct! Granted, the store policy "sucks" but there is a reason for it. If he wanted to stop her why didn't he do so the first time? As with any story, there is more to this then meets the eye. Everyone is speculating on what happened as the entire story is not here. If you work for Target or know someone that does you will find that out.

You know what..This makes me sick..If this girl would have dies in a car accident and someone found out this employee knew she had taken the booze and didn't inform anyone there would have been one big law suit. But you know what this guy did the right thing and "no I don't care about some store policy " My hat goes off to the employee who did what he did and my middle finger goes up to the management at Target.

My guess is the 15% additional cost to PAYING consumers for shoplifting losses will be up to 50% once this hits the streets. Maybe getting Butler off the supreme court will help to rein in the trial attorneys and honest companies like Target can feel like they can react without being sued by a bunch of thieves, both the shoplifters and their attorneys.

kivsquest...I'm sorry to say that it is you that does not make much sense. What Babcock did was fail to follow store policy. At no time ,according to the article that I read,was he accused of lying,trying to cover up what he did or ask anyone to lie for him . Nothing in the article indicates that what he did rises to the level of misconduct. He did fail to follow store policy and that was why he was fired,plain and simple.He was not looking for 15 minutes of fame as what you accused him of. He was only taking an action that any reasonable and prudent person in his position would and should do.
I think you should practice what you write and "please, stop and think before you post these hurtful unruly comments."

Mr. Babcock, I don't mean to cast you in a bad light. The facts are facts and you know what you did was wrong. You knew the risks and chose to do the right thing, despite knowing it could cost you your job. I do truly admire you and wish there were more fine, upstanding folks like yourself. Do not get down because of the situation. You can do better than Target, you know that. God Bless.

Just to clarify for some folks, Mr. Babcock was terminated for not following Target's policy. He knew what he did was wrong and tried to conceal it from management. Being dishonest got him fired, not the mere act of stopping the girl.
Yes, it is disheartening that shoplifting increases costs for everyone. But, Target is more afraid of the lawsuit than the actual loss of merchandise. One bad stop can mean tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if the person loses or dismisses the case. Frame that in dollars and cents and one can see that the risk is sometimes not worth the reward of catching someone with $30 of merchandise.
Someone asked if I would hire Dean Babcock since I salute him, no I would not. I admire him, yes, but my job is reflective of his performance. The reality is that he did something that has invited this scrutiny on Target and opened Target up to liability. Who wants to gamble that this girls parents haven't already spoken to an attorney?
And yes, I do watch merchandise walk out the door, including Dyson's. It isn't because I "don't know how" to approach a guest, it is because I am specifically barred from doing so by my leaders and policy. If I was to stop someone from walking out with Dyson's, what is the point? I know I could be fired, or at a minimum had something "in my employment file" that would end my career. Not worth it, sorry. Not to mention, getting stabbed or shot isn't worth it, either.
Bottom line, parents need to teach their children from an early age that theft is wrong. Unless parents accept that responsibility, there is nothing a manager of any store is going to be able to do for them.

He wanted to handle the situation low key without the bosses finding out. That is the same as lying in my book.

Kiv- Where does it say he lied? I have read this article more than once and no where does it say he lied about anything. The fired him because he broke policy which was detaining the girl about the alcohol.

And if he gets 15 minutes of fame behind this then good for him. Something like this needed to come out. If he hadn't gone to the papers no one would be aware that 16 yr olds are going to target and walking out with bottles of alcohol. SO what if you don't want to get shot for stopping a shop lifter. If you are in the security field there is ALWAYS that risk of something going wrong. You still do your job however.

mcs, your statement doesn't make any sense. It does state in the article that he lied. I was stating about the hurtful statments toward a store upholding the law and rules of the establishment. As for my statement about the prices not going up due to shoplifting--sorry---I did misspeak. It does add to the increase but not 100% as some seem to be stating in these comments.

Also, TARGET is NOT the only store being hit with shoplifters and firing of personnel due to misconduct at work. I personally think Dean wanted 15-minutes of fame and to have people feel sorry for him due to his firing. I guess it backfired as it was pointed out he lied. I would not hire anyone that was fired due to liying, would you?

kivsquest....you made both of these statements. Perhaps I missed somthing,but where does it say he was fired for lying.. "It is unfortunate that Dean was fired but, as stated, it was due to lying not helping the 16-year old" "People please, stop and think before you post these hurtful unruly comments."

kivsquest,
As has been pointed out to you... the prices are largely effected by shoplifters. It's true that the increased gas prices are making a lot of things more expensive, but that doesn't mean that shoplifting doesn't also increase prices.

About the legal definition of shoplifting...
A lot of us realize that it isn't considered shoplifting until the person(s) go beyond the final point of payment. In some states it's also shop lifting if you move to a different level of the store. Also included is changing a price tag on an item, and then trying to pay for it at that lower price. It is not considered shop lifting at the moment that you changed the price tag, though. Only when you insist that the price is correct. It's not even shop lifting if you eat a candy bar, but bring the wrapper to the cashier and pay for it before you leave.
I never shopped at Target too much in the first place, but they've lost whatever patronage they once had from me. I would have supported their decision to reprimand the security guard, but not to fire him.

Concealment is probable cause to detain and arrest for shoplifting. The policy of the local City and District Attorney's is to make detention and arrest past the last area of payment and preferably outside the store. This makes their chances of convention much greater.
As far as the article ,the security guard did the appropriate thing . It may have been against Target's policy but in reality he was protecting Target from civil liabilities. If the 16yr old girl were let go and information were to surface that it was done with Target personnel's knowledge they would be liable in the event of an accident.

New advertising slogan for Target: Home of the Five-Fingered Discount

Cant be considered a theft until they walk out the door with the item(s) on the way out they may decide to stop at casheir and pay

kiv, shop where ever you wish but get a clue.

According to the Better Business Bureau shoplifting is one of the most costly crimes a business faces. Everyone pays for shoplifting. Prices in stores must be raised to cover the cost of shoplifting. Estimates vary, but some retailers are forced to raise prices as much as 15 percent to cover these losses. An item that would cost $100 may be priced at $115 simply to cover the cost of shoplifting. According to one study, each family in the United States pays as much as $2000 extra in retail stores each year because of shoplifting.

Still another cost of shoplifting has been store guards and security devices, closed circuit television cameras and public relations personnel. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent of shoplifters think that the cost of shoplifting is passed on to consumers.

kivsquest - I agree that the rules are there for safety and should be followed. However, you are living in a dream world if you think that shoplifting doesn't cause an increase in prices for the rest of the customers. How else do you think the stores are able to cover their losses? Insurance? Well, that also increases in cost as claims increase. Lastly, have you not noticed the security officers that now stand by the door as you leave Target? How do you think their salary is paid? Increasing in prices.

I will still continue my shopping at TARGET after this. TARGET followed it's rules to the letter. They also followed the law of the state. It is unfortunate that Dean was fired but, as stated, it was due to lying not helping the 16-year old. When you have a shoplifter you don't know if they have a gun, knife or even with HIV infected needles. TARGET, as well as all stores, have to be careful and put their saftey first before that of the shoplifter. Would you like to get shot for stopping a shoplifter? Not me. The prices in stores do not go up due shoplifting, they go up due to gas prices to deliver the merchandise and due to other economic increases. People please, stop and think before you post these hurtful unruly comments. Not eveyone is perfect, but we do have to follow rules and laws, which is what this store did.

I can see it now. Just like the liquor store that those teens thought they could help themselves to, now Target will be the next mark for all those people with no moral standard whatsoever. Get ready for prices to start increasing at Janesville's Target now that the policy has been disclosed.

It really makes me sick to think that people feel they can up and take things that don't belong to them. And how the heck can you allow a vacuum cleaner to just "walk" out of your store. You surely can't hide it in your bag or under your coat. Did someone at least walk out to the parking lot and write down a license plate to give to the police(or was it an inside job). As the old saying goes..."This country is going to H#@l in a handbag!"

I understand that Target, like every store, has to have rules and policies and it's not unreasonable for them to demand that employees follow them. But firing the employee under these particular circumstances seems way too severe a penalty for him to pay and there should be some flexibility in how they discipline an employee. Why wouldn't a letter of reprimand in his employment file be sufficent? He's disciplined, wiser for the experience and they still have an obviously consciencous employee in whom they've invested time and money.
I'm not sure why but for whatever reason I just don't shop at Target to begin with. I doubt I've been in the store more than three or four times since it's been built. So the publicity isn't likely to change my shopping habits as some here have mentioned it will change theirs. However previously I was indifferent towards Target but their handling of this situation has caused me to feel negatively towards them. I can't believe that's what they're hoping for.

April 4-"-- THEFT of four Dyson vacuum cleaners, valued at $2,146, from Target, 2017 Humes Road, Janesville. reported Wednesday."

A Dyson is a $500 vacuum cleaner. Four walked out of the Janesville store last week as reported in the Gazette. I hate to think what % of my Target bill is to pay for their policy of letting thieves go. It will be a % of a much smaller amount going forward.

What is a Dyson?

Lesson learned kids - just look the other way, don't do the right thing because the big wigs could possibly maybe might get sued.

I was very impressed with Mr. Babcock's compassion and handling of the 16 year old girl who was stealing liquor and appalled at the reaction of Target management (particularly since the person who should have handled the incident was not there that day). I'd certainly like to read the job description for a security guard at Target if not to stop theft of merchandise in the store. I'm sure this young lady's parents are grateful to have heard that their daughter has a drinking problem so they can take proper action. One can assume that since Target's theft policies have been made public, there will now be a run on the store and that theft will escalate. There should be a zero tolerance for theft everywhere. Today it might be a $5.00 item that's taken - tomorrow it could be hundreds of dollars. Firing this conscientious man is incomprehensible to me - he was not only doing something to prevent someone from stealing but went further and alerted this individual's parents so they could begin to work on the problem of their daughter's underage drinking. Kudos to him - I won't be shopping at Target any longer.

CannotSay; Does this mean you would hire Mr.Babcock at your store since you salute him and you are A manager of an area Target store? And by the way now that you have disclosed that Target generally does nothing on food shoplifting under $10 or $10-$25 such as CDs as used as an example.....WOW And you have seen Dysons walk out the door! There is something very wrong here then and theres another reason why prices go up! Why should I pay more for what I buy because you just watched A $500 Dyson walk out the door because you didn't know how to approach the person walking off with it? Who runs Target as A Whole and why can't they re-wite some policies to help consumers and (my god employees doing the right thing)?

Once again corporate mentality shines through, pad the fat cat execs and let the honest consumer pick up the tab for boneheaded company policies.
The greening of America, as in; $$$

Welcome to America!

Full disclosure here - I am a manager of one of the area Target stores. I can verify that the policy, practice, instruction and training clearly state that Dean Babcock, as a TPS (Target Protection Services) was not allowed to apprehend or accuse anyone of shoplifting. The only person in the store that can stop a shoplifter is the ETL-AP (Executive Team Leader-Assets Protection). Not even the store manager is allowed to stop a shoplifter, even if the person in plain sight carries it right out the door. The only thing they can do is get a description of the person and call the police. That is why Dyson's walk right out the door every day.

Target does this to limit liability for lawsuits. If someone suspected of shoplifting is stopped and it turns out they dumped the merchandise before apprehension, or the ETL-AP was wrong, the store is open to lawsuit. To make matters worse, the ETL-AP is immediately placed on a final warning, which is a death sentence to an executive's career at Target.

Needless to say, the ETL-AP is deathly afraid of making a bad stop and will ensure only the most blatant and obvious shoplifters are apprehended. This means it is clearly caught on camera from start to finish. If the person goes out of view of the camera for even a second, they will not stop because the merchandise could have been dumped in that split second.

Target doesn't allocate resources to assets protection except in the larger volume "urban" stores. Small stores in good cities don't get any support. Feel free to steal from them all you want. Target views these stores as having a loss ratio low enough to be irrelevant. Sad but true.

Target also does not stop anyone for less than $10, $25 is preferred. You would be shocked at how many people we watch walk away with CDs. Not worth the processing time or risk. Target also does not care about stealing food. It is referred to as "consumption" and is usually below the $10 amount. You will see empty candy wrappers all over the store if you look close. We do nothing about that.

I just want everyone to know that what Mr. Babcock did was against all of his Target training, instruction and policies. He clearly knew it was wrong. While it was, as another stated, morally right, it was technically wrong. He was not fired for violating the policy, he was fired for being dishonest in the way he handled it. He thought no one would find out. The manager did and terminated him. If you can't trust AP, you can't trust anyone, hence the firing.

Mr. Babcock, I salute you because you did what I dream of doing every day when I watch people steal in front of me. All I can do is ask "can I help you find something?" in hopes that they "know" I'm onto them and minimize the loss. Never works, but kudos to you sir for looking out for the safety of this youth. We can only hope your sacrifice was worth a lesson to her and her family.

One poster claims that it is not retail theft until the person has left the store, I believe the law indicates that changing price tags or concealling merchandise is a crime when it occurs and the suspect does not have to leave the store to be in violation. Not surprisingly the bottles of alcohol are imported, everything else is the store is made in another country as well.

lol.. Just when I think things can't get anymore ridiculous, and Common Sense can't get any further away.. Target makes the news by firing someone for "Doing the right thing".. the only wrong thing is a Company Policy that would allow a child to walk into their business, & leave with alcohol in her coat.. (or backpack, or under her clothes, whatever). What needs to be fired is that idiotic policy along with "Zero Tolerance Policies" a.k.a. "no more common sense."

And whether Target would have told this security officer it was proud of him or not, he has to be at peace with his decision and know in his soul he did the right thing for HIM.

Isn't it funny how we all think we know the right way to handle things in this situation, when I am willing to bet the majority have not been trained in corporate control. Let's just trust that there is more underlying reasons we are not aware of, and believe that if a law was broken justice will prevail.

It is not an attempted theft until you get passed the cash registar and out the door.

If it had been me and I would have gladly lost my job for doing so. The second time when confronting the obviously underage girl I would one take the bottle from her (it was in her backpack obviously she wasn't going to try and pass a fake id to purchase it) two take her information down and three tell her to get the heck out of my store and not to come back or else I would get the police involved.

I would then call her parents let them know what happened and offer to show the video tape. The girl admitted to the first theft and even showed the second bottle in her bag. I'm sorry but I would not have let her leave with the alcohol, manager on duty or not. I would not want the possible injury or death of innocent people on my conscious.

"Target does not condone underage drinking or theft...and we maintain appropriate procedures and implement many safeguards to prevent their occurence," < This is total BS. If it were true then why was she able to walk away with a bottle the first time and almost got away with it a second time?

Rexkramer:

If the guard follows the shoplifting laws, he and his employer are covered for their good faith actions. If the guard, on his own, detains a person to investigate liquor law violations there is no such liability protection. If you were an employer, which route would you want your employee to take? Hence the reason for the rules that got the guard fired in the first place.

I'm with Rex on this one. She is 16. Regardless of the fact she was a 'guest' she's 16 and thus cannot be in possession of alcohol is the first damn place. If she had gotten drunk with her friends and done something stupid and dangerous and got someone killed both Target and this guard would be on the hook for letting her leave with the bottle of patron.

devilsadvocate, I don't think confronting a 16 year old in possession of alcohol inside the store is premature. If she was 21, perhaps, but at 16 she shouldn't have it in her possession ANYWHERE inside the store or out. this whole story is an example of how the "rules are rules" and "zero tolerance" philosophies are a complete failure.

The security guard's actions did not comport with the shoplifting laws. He should have stopped her after she passed the last cash register and was on her way out of the store. Stopping a customer within the isles of the store, is a bit premature. Depending on the circumstances the actions could lead to civil judgments against the store.

For that reason, the store has to exercise control to see that those employees stopping/detaining customers are properly trained to do so.

Because of the liability aspect, on the stores part, they would be justified in punishing or terminating employees not following the rules.

well, as much as I hate to admit it, garyprimer is correct. It's a sad state of affairs when social conscience loses to legal justice.

This is not as simple as it sounds. Management has to draft rules and protocols that are basically "one size fits all" and enforce them carefully and without discrimination to avoid lawsuits from shoplifters. There cannot be even a hint of profiling or discrimination of race or a bonafide shoplifter has a case for litigation.

Wow, what an ingenious theft provention program they have over there (sarcasm). If this is a corporate policy, I guess Target doesn't even get highly educated individuals even at their corporate headquarters. How sad.

At the risk of sounding rude, companies are afraid of being sued because of CONSUMERS and EMPLOYEES. If our society wasn't so sue happy, companies, resident's, teachers etc...wouldn't have to worry so much about being so politically right, and become less personal. THere are many levels of blame, and to regain a compassionate world, we need to be less offensive.

Ridiculous. Unfortunately, the employer's rules he mentioned are pretty similar across the board. Having worked in retail most of my life, most retailers are so worried about getting sued they would rather have people get away with shoplifting than have employees approach someone known to have shoplifted. Morally, Babcock did the right thing. I applaud him and hopefully he'll find another job quickly.

heatherpink17-where the alcohol is in a store depends on city codes, not store policy. Janesville code states that all alcohol businesses must be separate from any other type of store. Lyon's out by the jail and Kwik Trip Trip on Hwy 51 are outside of the city limits. That's why their alcohol isn't separate.

Shame on Target. I am so sick of big companies HIDING behind, "it's our policy." Let's get some common sense - I love to shop at Target but I will be rethinking my desire to shop there. I would have supported a reprimand perhaps for not following "policy" but to terminate the guard, especially if there was no authorized supervisor on duty, is the height of ridiculousness.

Lake Geneva should be pulling Target's liquor license for violating liquor sales policy allowing minors to have access to alcohol.

To the security guard... may you find another job that actually cares about what you tried to do. Which is to work to your best ability, we all know you did.

To Target... Hope this gets out to more press and see how other consumers will think about shopping at a place such as yours (Target). Perhaps this action in firing an employee over an absurd policy is reflected as negative as it can be.

Regarding Target's support or supposed lack of the US troops: it seems that was just another unfactual e-mail making the rounds. Check it out at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/...

For what it's worth, I just want to mention that this happened at the Target in Lake Geneva and not the one here in Janesville.

The police are tough on businesses who sell booze to under age people. Lets see if they care about giving it to the minors. If a minor gets hurt from having booze from Target, are they liable because they knowingly supply them with it. I'm sure there are many businesses that would like to hire Dean because he has common sense. Bad move Target.

Good call Mr.Babcock. Wrong call Target.

I hope this honest man does not try to go back to working there, even if they would let him, I dont care what the "store policy" is and obviously its not that great of one if they're sayin hey let the 16 year old drink, and steal, just fire the security guard for doing the right thing....why is'nt the alcohol locked up in the first place? or seperate like walmart and woodmans

I think we all have to remember we are getting the shorthand version of corporate polocies, and until we read the whole story, and the fine print on theft polocies, we should opt to be sympathetic towards this man's story but remember there is always more than reported on how a company handles theft. It would be silly of them to disclose there operation step by step....I doubt they are in a place to be easily robbed....there are more steps involved.

mcs, Target, at least that local one in Lake Geneva, has a policy that defies reasonable explanation, but-thoroughly check out what you refer to as "their position on our troops in Iraq" before you base your shopping decisions on that. I'm betting you'll find out it's one of those urban legends that have been going around about them for years. It's one of hundreds of such stories that are really amazing. Anytime I hear of something that unimaginable, I always check it out. To coin a new phrase, "If it's too bad to be true, it probably isn't (true)."

I am never shopping at TARGET again.....Unbelievable What kinda management is that!!!!

I believe that everyone is missing the larger picture. The mega stores of the world are realizing that it is much cheaper to passively allow shoplifting and pass the cost onto the honest shoppers than to fight lawyers and civil courts. Enjoy your shopping at Target knowing that you are paying for Suzy and her drinking habit and the other shoplifters. I don't shop at Target for this reason and many others, including their position on our troops in Iraq.

We shop a lot at Target, but we will rethink our feelings about safety and investigate other store's policies. I will not feel comfortable in these stores. I do not think that I have to see if there is not only a security guard, but also is there a supervisor? Do I want to continue to shop there? - NO!

I hope there is some local employer out there looking for a honest, conscientious employee who would like to snap up Mr. Dean Babcock while he is still available.

Is it really necessary for a Target store to be selling alcohol in the first place? Especially if there is no way to keep minors away from it..

I work for a retail chain in the pine tree plaza and we basically have the same policy, which in my mind is rediculous! they claim that employees safety comes first, which i understand, but i get angry that little 16 year old girls can come in, fill their purse up and walk out and we can't do anything!!!!

It sounds to me like this security guard has the same problem our combat troops are currently experiencing, the "rules of engagement" are skewed toward the perpetrater.

Target looks like a good spot for shoplifters to go after.

Why have security then?

Security Guard?? What were they paying him for? Its obviously not to deter shoplifters! At least he caught her. By the looks of some of the security guards I've seen.................

I agree with RUSerious, I would like to see the other side of this story.

tinkerb- That was way rude.
Those kids and adults try so hard, they are ATHLETES, and it's not like they asked to be born with or acquire a disability.
I'd rather be a friend to a kindly disabled person than such a rude narcissistic individual than yourself or edgewater.

by political correctness i was referring to target...my bad for the confusion. i imagine they may have had a law suit or 2 and had to settle. then they went over the top was what i meant. sorry again ruserious. yes, the special olymics was waaaay too much. i work with a challanged person who has met and exceded their "ceiling" and i thank the lord that person came into my life.

I agree mytake4u, up until he added the special olympics line. That was in pretty poor taste. He should have left well enough alone while everyone was "on his side".
I still hope we hear more clarification about this Target story <-----attempt at staying on topic.

All of our dealings with Target have been negative. We swore them off as a New Years resolution.

edgewater....wow! and you are out there walking among us? you need help! the object is to debate, and yes, be humorus at times. name calling is uncalled for. people have a right to their opinion about the subject, not the poster. ruserious...i think this is political correctness that went over the top. what say you?

if security guards cant stop thieves then what do they have them for, good looks? in the public records they reported the thefts of dysons , i wonder why they took them from target lol

"Babcock said the manager told him he should have approached the girl and asked if he could help her find something."

Yeah, can you help me find a bigger bag so I can shoplift more booze??

Security Guards at Target must be to stop the EMPLOYEES from stealing. The customers, or is it GUESTS, are apparently treated very hospitably by Target.

I thought the reason Target had security guards at their store was to stop people from stealing! What's the point in having a person wandering the store observing people if they can't physically stop them from stealing?

If Target isn't going to stop shoplifters, why in the world did they spend a fortune to put up the surveillance cameras. When the word gets around that the employees get fired for busting a shoplifter, all employees will begin looking the other way. I know I sure would. Target needs to change their policy.

I reread the story thinking there must be something I missed. Or maybe there will be more details that weren’t included (yet), like maybe Babcock got the thief in a chokehold and threw her on the floor, threatening to kill her if she didn’t ‘fess up, or maybe a supervisor was waiting outside the exit to catch her leaving with the goods and Babcock knew it but wanted to be the hero, or maybe....something, anything besides that he was fired for not allowing this 16 year old to leave with the alcohol because he wasn’t “commissioned” to stop her, and no one else who was so commissioned was on duty (the act of shoplifting must have certain hours there, just like Target supervisors)! I will reserve my judgment on their seeming lack of judgment until I read more about it. But if that's the way it really went, tinkerb45’s joke might give people ideas. What could be easier than finding out when that store has no supervision on duty-then someone so inclined could just start grabbing away, knowing employees are powerless to stop him/her?
And to Edgewater, I sure think your reaction to tinkerb’s obvious attempt at humor was way, way over the top. Sounds like a job for Angermanagement Man!

In need some new clothes, dvd's, computer games and some small appliances. If I go here I won't be hassled for not paying! SWEET!