Shopping While Black

[William Parcher]

I think there are missing actions or sequences of events in the description. For example, there's no mention of a peek into the dressing room to see if the phantom fifth dress is in there - nor a mention that the clerk never even looked.

When they exited (the changing room), a blond-haired clerk confronted the two about a fifth clothing item.

When? The instant they stepped out of the room with clothes-in-hand, or some time after?

 

[Brainster]

Great metaphor! But have you noticed just how many cherries there are in those trees? It is no trouble at all to pick one, and then another, and then another. Pretty soon one starts to realize that there are a lot of cherries, an entire crop worth, and picking any one is representative of what is going on at a much larger scale.

They're also pretty emaciated cherries. A white woman hassled a black woman sleeping in common room of a dorm. A white woman hassled a black family for cooking with charcoal in a no-charcoal area. And a white woman suspected a black woman of shoplifting.

And these all happened in extremely liberal areas--Yale University (where 12% are conservatives), Oakland (the SF Bay area went for Hillary by a higher margin than any other metro area in the country), and Brooklyn (Hillary won by better than 80%-20%.

 

[Darat]

You're not allowed to in primary schools in the UK. Green is seen as less aggressive/ confrontational.

Daily Mail headlines are not always accurate!

 

[Thermal]

In which case, the patrons were correct - they were being accused of shoplifting. Arguing that the clerk "didn't use that exact word" is frankly intelligence-insulting; even non-white people are capable of reading subtext, and the store clerk's actions after they left proved their interpretation accurate.

There's a fine line between sorting something out and accusing of shoplifting. If you start with the assumption that the blond clerk genuinely thought there was a fifth item, then she just wanted to account for it whether stolen, left in the changing room, or whatever. The subtext has nothing to do with 'black people steal'; it is about keeping track of their merchandise.

It seems to me that a great deal of "they're just playing the race card" objections do stem from this refusal to acknowledge the existence of subtext; or rather, refusal to allow black people's interpretations of it to be used against those employing it. The white store clerk read "possible shoplifting" into the black patrons' "furtive behavior" and that reading is perfectly reasonable of course; but for the black patrons to read "possible racism" into the clerk's line of questioning is malicious and "playing the race card".

I hear you, but there is a huge difference between considering 'possible racism' and making a loud, public accusation.

 

[Thermal]

My apologies, it's not confirmed in the article that they actually bought something.


Which notice? Cite please.

OP article. Picture of the notice about halfway down, it blows up to be clearly readable.

Anyway, I don't understand why this is an issue in clothing stores in the USA.

When I was 10 or so, i.e., some 40 years ago, every clothing store here introduced those thingies they put in clothes, which the cashier removes, and installed gates at the exit so that whenever someone tried to shoplift clothes the exit gate would ring off with a loud bell. That would pretty much eliminate the possibility of (unconscious) racism with store personnel (except then for a consciously racist cashier who systematically "forgets" to remove the thingies from the purchases of black customers, but that case would be pretty obvious).

A hipster boutique is selling second hand stuff and likely sneers at the idea of security tags, anyway. IME, only fairly large retail places use security tags. I don't think I've ever seen a small store using them. Cost prohibitive with a small inventory? I dunno.

 

[fuelair]

Probably by not accusing people of a crime and/or calling the police until they can be reasonably certain a crime has been or is being committed.

Since we know that a crime was not committed here and since the store's lawyer has managed only to cite a perception of "furtive behavior" (and *********** lied about there being no accusation of shoplifting - they called the cops!) the options are stupidity and racism, and one doesn't rule out the other.

This, simply this.

 

[fuelair]

How would any store clerk anywhere at any time suspect that an item may have been stolen if they don't believe that an item may have been stolen?

suspect and believe mean pretty much the same thing in that and many related situations. Acting on it with zero evidence (belief is not evidence) is not a good idea for avoiding interesting news stories and bad following results.

 

[fuelair]

1) the women were actively trying to get out of the store, no time to go through pulling up video records.

2) wouldn't that show that the clerk believed a theft had taken place? It would be, as you say, a pointless and meaningless bluff if she knew they actually didn't steal anything

The fun thing is that if the clerk did but could not prove they had they would be wise to lawsuit the store. And absent anyything like real evidence it would not bother me at all if the store was sued out of existence. I note this as when I was in my late teens I went into a shoe store looking for (surprise) a pair of shoes. As I came in, a salesperson came up and asked what I would like to see. I responded that I was just looking to see if they had something I liked. Skipping other interference with me looking at shoes and following me around the store', I got bored with same (and they had no shoes I took the time to check as they had a selection not to my liking) I left.
I was never accused of shoplifting but it was obvious the salesperson was way pushy/suspicious/unable to deal with customers who could not tell him what they wanted in the perfect shoe. In other words, incompetent or trying to show off to management or both.

Late edit: I am white as was the clerk so racism was not involved.

 

[fuelair]

No, the Nordstrom case is worse, when it comes to the store personnel. The customers were aware of being followed by the personnel through the store. They obviously didn't see them shoplift anything during that time, but nevertheless sent the police on them. They knew they had no evidence.

As the question whether it's racism, I'll agree with you it's not obvious like in the Starbucks case or the Siyonbola (the Yale student) case. But the majority of white Americans voted for the Racist-in-Chief. That warrants the baseline assumption that it's more likely racism than not.

The last two lines are so very correct.

 

[Thermal]

The fun thing is that if the clerk did but could not prove they had they would be wise to lawsuit the store. And absent anyything like real evidence it would not bother me at all if the store was sued out of existence. I note this as when I was in my late teens I went into a shoe store looking for (surprise) a pair of shoes. As I came in, a salesperson came up and asked what I would like to see. I responded that I was just looking to see if they had something I liked. Skipping other interference with me looking at shoes and following me around the store', I got bored with same (and they had no shoes I took the time to check as they had a selection not to my liking) I left.
I was never accused of shoplifting but it was obvious the salesperson was way pushy/suspicious/unable to deal with customers who could not tell him what they wanted in the perfect shoe. In other words, incompetent or trying to show off to management or both.

Exactly. Suspicious, but not racist. That is my point.

I have been suspected of B&E/burglary many times (never did it, just in empty houses at odd times due to my work). I do not assume any kind of -isms because someone called the police. It would look to some people that I was in fact a burglar, and I get that. It would not occur to me to sue anyone. Similar here, I think. The clerk was suspicious of the women, because it is claimed that they made furtive movements, which I take to mean looking like they were shoving something in their bags or whatever. Plausible enough. There is no reason to assume this was based on their race, as opposed to misinterpreting their movements. If, as claimed, one of the women berated the clerk based on her race, class, and appearance, then oh, yeah, shots fired.

Late edit: I am white as was the clerk so racism was not involved.

Nor can we assume race was the motivating factor here, except for the women's claim of it...which they don't even suggest there is evidence of beyond their bald assertion.

 

[Thermal]

No, the Nordstrom case is worse, when it comes to the store personnel. The customers were aware of being followed by the personnel through the store. They obviously didn't see them shoplift anything during that time, but nevertheless sent the police on them. They knew they had no evidence.

As the question whether it's racism, I'll agree with you it's not obvious like in the Starbucks case or the Siyonbola (the Yale student) case. But the majority of white Americans voted for the Racist-in-Chief. That warrants the baseline assumption that it's more likely racism than not.

They did not. The majority of American voters voted for Sec Clinton, by millions of votes. But more to the point, Trump voters may have voted based on entirely different criteria than perceived racist leanings. Many did, no doubt. But do you see that your reasoning quite literally assumes that all Americans are likely to be racist? Guilty till proven Woke, huh?

 

[Mumbles]

They did not. The majority of American voters voted for Sec Clinton, by millions of votes. But more to the point, Trump voters may have voted based on entirely different criteria than perceived racist leanings. Many did, no doubt. But do you see that your reasoning quite literally assumes that all Americans are likely to be racist? Guilty till proven Woke, huh?

Well, no, it was about 53% of white women who voted that went for Dolt 45 according to exit polling, and higher than that for white men who voted.

As for the bolded...I wouldn't say "most", but about, say, 1 in 3 sounds about right to me, based on studies of white Americans. And no, I don't know of any actual studies of nonwhite Americans.

 

[johnny karate]

The lesson I draw from this thread:

Accusations of racism must be very carefully considered before being levelled.

Accusations of crimes, on the other hand... you go right ahead and make those whenever you feel like it.

 

[Thermal]

Well, no, it was about 53% of white women who voted that went for Dolt 45 according to exit polling, and higher than that for white men who voted.

As for the bolded...I wouldn't say "most", but about, say, 1 in 3 sounds about right to me, based on studies of white Americans. And no, I don't know of any actual studies of nonwhite Americans.

You're right, I didn't see 'white voters' in the claim. I stand corrected.

One in three, I would sadly have to agree with, just based on personal experience.

 

[Checkmite]

There's a fine line between sorting something out and accusing of shoplifting. If you start with the assumption that the blond clerk genuinely thought there was a fifth item, then she just wanted to account for it whether stolen, left in the changing room, or whatever. The subtext has nothing to do with 'black people steal'; it is about keeping track of their merchandise.

That potentiality was eliminated by the way the incident progressed. Regardless of however distasteful one might find being accused of racism, the material thing is that the patrons also asserted there was no fifth item, and that assertion did not satisfy the clerk who then attempted to prevent them from leaving and warned that store security cameras would have caught them stealing. These things alone go a few steps beyond a conscientious clerk simply wishing to keep track of all the merchandise and merely, neutrally, not discounting any eventuality; and that's to say nothing of the call to police to report a crime. You don't try to detain customers and call police to report a "larceny in progress" because there's an equal possibility in your mind that the "fifth item" was left on a bench in the changing room, or may have never even left the rack to begin with. It all adds up to a direct accusation - those people stole something, I'm sure enough of it to call the police and have them detained. Of course they hadn't stolen anything, but that was fairly predictable given lack of any evidence to support such a suspicion in the first place.

 

[Thermal]

That potentiality was eliminated by the way the incident progressed. Regardless of however distasteful one might find being accused of racism, the material thing is that the patrons also asserted there was no fifth item, and that assertion did not satisfy the clerk who then attempted to prevent them from leaving and warned that store security cameras would have caught them stealing. These things alone go a few steps beyond a conscientious clerk simply wishing to keep track of all the merchandise and merely, neutrally, not discounting any eventuality; and that's to say nothing of the call to police to report a crime. You don't try to detain customers and call police to report a "larceny in progress" because there's an equal possibility in your mind that the "fifth item" was left on a bench in the changing room, or may have never even left the rack to begin with. It all adds up to a direct accusation - those people stole something, I'm sure enough of it to call the police and have them detained. Of course they hadn't stolen anything, but that was fairly predictable given lack of any evidence to support such a suspicion in the first place.

OK. What do you make of the store's claim that one of the women berated the clerk's race, class, appearance, and made some sort of threat to her safety? Again, according to the store, Bedard or her daughter suggested the clerk called the police and left. How innocent do the women look now? If someone delivered insults and threats to me and suggested I call the cops, I might be inclined to do so. Why do you fault the clerk for doing so?

 

[Checkmite]

OK. What do you make of the store's claim that one of the women berated the clerk's race, class, appearance, and made some sort of threat to her safety? Again, according to the store, Bedard or her daughter suggested the clerk called the police and left. How innocent do the women look now? If someone delivered insults and threats to me and suggested I call the cops, I might be inclined to do so. Why do you fault the clerk for doing so?

Trading insult for insult doesn't bother me. Yes, implying someone may have shoplifted an item you have no definitive reason to believe even exists can fairly be considered an insult, an in-the-moment baseless direct attack on that person's character, and it's not unreasonable for the recipient of such an attack to respond in kind.

Someone who invites suspicious store employees to review security footage when threatened that it exists, and invites them to call police when they threaten to do so, looks fairly innocent to me. But at any rate, the clerk didn't call the police to report being insulted or threatened. She called the police to report a "larceny in progress" that there was absolutely no evidence for, and that is why I fault the clerk.

 

[bruto]

OK. What do you make of the store's claim that one of the women berated the clerk's race, class, appearance, and made some sort of threat to her safety? Again, according to the store, Bedard or her daughter suggested the clerk called the police and left. How innocent do the women look now? If someone delivered insults and threats to me and suggested I call the cops, I might be inclined to do so. Why do you fault the clerk for doing so?

It''s possible of course that this happened, and that the customers were nasty and rude, but if they actually were guilty of shoplifting, it seems unlikely they would have suggested to call the police. In any case, I take the statement of the owners with a little grain of salt anyway, as it seems very unlikely that there could have been any ambiguity in the underlying intention of "politely" wishing to "clarify a situation," when the ensuing fracas clearly involved a clerk alleging that they had stolen a dress, and it at least suggests some confusion on the part of the owners that in their stated appeal they blame the police for how they dealt with their "beautiful" customers, whom, if the police are not lying, were reported as engaged in "larceny in progress." According to the article and to the statement made by the owners themselves, although the charge of racial bias was made from the start, whatever insults and threats were made were made to the clerk after she pursued them outside the store, and it's hardly likely that this was a nice, polite event, since we are given to understand that the store personnel were at that very moment asserting that there was a larceny in progress. In any case, insulting a clerk who is chasing you down the street is simply not larceny. If the police are not lying the store owners are.

Sure, the customers may well have been unpleasant. They may even have made inappropriate, personally and racially inflammatory comments to the clerk who was chasing them down the street alleging that they were thieves, just before the cops came and clapped them in irons. I'm quite prepared to believe that a New York lawyer out to shop for chic clothing with her college age daughter is a nasty piece of work whom I probably would not like. But you don't have to be nice to be right.

 

[Thermal]

Trading insult for insult doesn't bother me. Yes, implying someone may have shoplifted an item you have no definitive reason to believe even exists can fairly be considered an insult, an in-the-moment baseless direct attack on that person's character, and it's not unreasonable for the recipient of such an attack to respond in kind.

Someone who invites suspicious store employees to review security footage when threatened that it exists, and invites them to call police when they threaten to do so, looks fairly innocent to me. But at any rate, the clerk didn't call the police to report being insulted or threatened. She called the police to report a "larceny in progress" that there was absolutely no evidence for, and that is why I fault the clerk.

I recall that in That Starbucks Thing, the dispatcher changed the call from 'men who won't buy anything or leave' to 'group of men creating a disturbance'. 'Larceny in progress' sounds a bit like cop-speak; are we sure this is what the clerk reported?

Eta: you say baseless and that there was absolutely no evidence for the suspicion of shoplifting. Are you discounting that the clerk evidently thought there was a fifth item not returned? While she seems to have been wrong on this, is that not grounds for readonable suspicion? As opposed to threatening the clerks safety, which I am having a hard time justifying in any context. I assume you consider this threat an outright lie on the store's part, is this correct? If not, why do you excuse it?

 

[sadhatter]

The lesson I draw from this thread:

Accusations of racism must be very carefully considered before being levelled.

Accusations of crimes, on the other hand... you go right ahead and make those whenever you feel like it.

One society has a way of dealing with the other is mob rule and the court of public opinion.