Crash-and-grab thievery
Posted By Alan Cohen in Square Pegs on January 30, 2007
This trend of crash-and-grab robberies doesn't show signs of ending any time soon. It made me think that we should run one of those fluff stories you see on the TV news all the time titled "How to protect your business from crash-and-grabs." Then we'd give stupid common sense advice. Problem is I hate those stories, plus I don't have a clue how most of these businesses would be able to protect themselves from someone crashing their car into their buildings.
So now I'm asking - what kind of practical measures could local businesses take to protect themselves from these crash-and-grab robberies? My only thought is that businesses could just get rid of in-store ATM machines, but I'm hoping there would a better solution before it came to that.
Right now, crash-and-grab seems like the perfect crime for the dumb criminal.
April Powell, says:
<a href="http://www.atmmarketplace.com/article.php?na=1&id=4544">Here is an article</a> from a couple of years ago that discusses the phenomenon and what some businesses can do. I've heard that the fogging technique (a sort of smoke bomb that prevents thieves from seeing where they're going) works pretty well.
Staff
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Erin Rice, says:
I think this is really the only way to go:
<img src="http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/photos/2007/01/30/atm-timus_prime.jpg">
(Sorry, not very skilled with photoshop.)
Verified
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Matt Anderson, says:
I'm a little curious about how the number of Dallas smash and grabs may have changed since Dallas went to "verified response" for businesses. I guess the chances of being caught are greatly reduced if the police won't respond until a security company or the owner has already driven over to take a look.
Verified
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad Jones, says:
Matt: that seems like a pretty solid explanation for the increase. Also, maybe somewhat, the media is now playing these thefts up because they are a fashionable story (not to say their frequency is exaggerated, but increased exposure can sometimes seem like increased quantity). Maybe. Maybe not.
Erin: So the money will dispense from Optimus Prime's crotch. Great.
Verified
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
An excellent question, Matt.
It looks like many experts think that verified response is directly linked to the uptick in burglaries of all kinds. ATM smash and grabs would be no exception:
http://www.sdmmag.com/CDA/Articles/In...
Our pal Allen Gwinn never liked it from the start:
http://www.dallas.org/node/84
And, Belo8 looked into your exact question back in December. Merchants certainly believe verified response is to blame: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/arti...
(Unfortunately, their video appears to have expired.)
CBS11 followed suit with a report a week later where the cops claimed victory because of the decrease in false alarms, but business groups cited a rise in burglaries:
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_...
Although I'm no expert, it looks to me like verified response isn't advocated by anyone who is serious about bringing crime down, but is really a cosmetic measure that more and more cities are taking to make it look like they're doing something.
Staff
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
These cheap grocery store owners in the 'hood aren't going to charge.
It's unfortunate, but maybe the storeowners ought to reinvest some of those $2+ ATM withdrawal fees into protecting the store fronts. Sadly, what will happen is these stores will close and the owners will be forced to peddle their overpriced goods somewhere else.
Verified
2 years, 10 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal