Shopping While Black

[sadhatter]

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.

Have you worked in retail? That is the same thing everyone says (innocent and guilty) even when caught in the act. If that shows innocence to you I find that kinda cute.

 

[Checkmite]

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?

"Larceny" is definitely "police speak" for theft; we can be reasonably certain from the store's own admission of its suspicions that they at the very least accused the customers of stealing something, however they chose to precisely word it.

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?

No; it's just question-begging. What exactly made it reasonable for the clerk to believe that there was a "fifth item" that hadn't been accounted for? When freely able to speak in its own defense, the store's sole justification for this suspicion is "furtive behavior" on the part of the customers. It is never once mentioned that this clerk ever for instance actually saw them handling a fifth item at any point, or ever saw a fifth item go into the dressing room with them and not come out. There is no reason given aside from "furtive behavior". Contrarily, in their defense, the victims of the false accusation don't provide any information that would explain this mistake. According to them, there were exactly four items, all of which they left laying on a bench outside the dressing room. They don't object that they left some potential fifth item in the dressing room, or that they returned one to the rack, or left it in the pile with the other clothing on the bench and that the store simply miscounted.

Given the fact that this fifth item objectively did not exist, it's up to the store to make a case for why they believe it did, not on me to invent facts to make their proven-wrong suspicion reasonable.

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?

I consider the claim problematic because it is too vague to be useful for one; but primarily, the store is already on its back foot here. So far we have two opposing claims; it was the customers' that has been proven the most right so far, and the store has already demonstrated that it is willing to be creative with messaging by implying it was wrong of the customers to object to being accused of shoplifting since "that word was never used" even though the store very obviously did suspect them of exactly that, even to the point that they called the police for that very reason. And considering that the store is willing to get very specific about details such as word-choice when it believes they serve its own case, the fact they chose to be vague about whatever the "threat" was has some unavoidable implications. Given the nature of the scene outside - the store employee was attempted to detain them after all - I can very easily see one of the customers saying something along the lines of "if you touch me I'll knock your block off" and the store characterizing this as a threat to the employee's safety even though it is more accurately a warning of self-defense.

 

[Checkmite]

Have you worked in retail? That is the same thing everyone says (innocent and guilty) even when caught in the act. If that shows innocence to you I find that kinda cute.

It certainly doesn't show guilt.

 

[cullennz]

So can US cops just handcuff anyone they want over there?

Seems an odd law when all you have is a shops opinion

 

[Vixen]

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

Good grief!!! When I was at school, I always thought my Chemistry teacher, Mr E., was a lovely man. Then a couple of years ago I bought the former pupils' book available on Amazon, and was amazed to read that this same teacher had become so enraged by the poor quality of one class' work, he stood at the front of the form and roundly ripped the papers up, loudly berating each pupil with oppobrium and sarcasm.

I do wonder if people are oversensitive. The store clerk may have made an honest mistake. I can understand the fury of the two shoppers OTOH.

 

[johnny karate]

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

Using ridiculously overblown terms like "mob rule" just serves to make your argument that much less credible.

 

[ddt]

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

I'm not sure what part of that notice proves your point that the clerk thought a theft took place. Instead, the notice goes out of its way to speak of theft and says "clarify a situation". As to the "polite" part, that's in the eye of the beholder. I just had a little incident yesterday where someone told me "goddamn put your fricking car to the side" and someone else characterized it as a polite request.

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.

Fair enough about the boutique. That doesn't apply to Nordstrom Rack, however.

 

[Mumbles]

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

History has actually shown that the US has a way of pointedly not dealing with racism, at best, and actively encouraging it at worst.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure what part of that notice proves your point that the clerk thought a theft took place.

No, you originally said that the clerk's actions might be explained by her being stupid or racist. That is a huge starting assumption, so I asked if you further assumed that the store was lying about one of the women's behavior, which included being threatening and insultingly racist, as well as insulting the clerk's class and appearance.

In order to view the clerk as being racist, you have to start out with the following assumptions: 1) the clerk was lying about thinking there was a fifth dress, 2) the intent of this lying was because she disliked black people specifically, 3) she further lied to her bosses about one of the women threatening and racially insulting her, her class, and appearance, and 4) she was too stupid to realize that the security video would not support her story, and she would indeed look like a racist idiot when it was found that the women had not stolen anything.

That's an awful lot of starting assumptions you have there.

By contrast (and applying the Razor), if we take her story at face value, she made a mistake in thinking there was a fifth dress, and the women overreacted, with racial insults and threats.

Which requires more unreported initial assumptions and projections?

Instead, the notice goes out of its way to speak of theft and says "clarify a situation". As to the "polite" part, that's in the eye of the beholder. I just had a little incident yesterday where someone told me "goddamn put your fricking car to the side" and someone else characterized it as a polite request.

Fair enough. Calling it 'clarifying a situation' was probably some pretty heavy sugar-coating. By that point, the gloves were surely off.

Fair enough about the boutique. That doesn't apply to Nordstrom Rack, however.

Very true. We don't know the specific reasons the young men had aroused suspicion in the first place. The work force was collectively racist? Possible. The guys were loud and boisterous? Also possible. Like so many of these threads, the key evidence is missing: what was going through their minds that influenced their actions? Assuming that the whites are all racist liars is profoundly unfair, IMO. It is also unfair to assert that race could not have played a part. Without resorting to calling the International Psychic's Forum, we should evaluate the known, I think. And that sometimes leaves us with just the facts.

 

[fuelair]

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?

Nah, just most republickers..........

 

[fuelair]

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?

No offence but do you possibly have a relative or friend who works at Nordstrom? Nothing I have read makes this a well handled situation by the store. Not to mention were I one of the customers I would definitely have told them to get the cops and after the report I would be talking with a lawyer. And looking forward to my later buying sprees on their nickels......

 

[fuelair]

I'm not sure what part of that notice proves your point that the clerk thought a theft took place. Instead, the notice goes out of its way to speak of theft and says "clarify a situation". As to the "polite" part, that's in the eye of the beholder. I just had a little incident yesterday where someone told me "goddamn put your fricking car to the side" and someone else characterized it as a polite request.


Fair enough about the boutique. That doesn't apply to Nordstrom Rack, however.

I will be forced to assume that the second person is an ******* as well as incompetent in the use of the English language. Obviously the first person is quite certainly a ************* *******!!!!!!

Hope this helps,and, yes, I have a bad attitude about certain things...............

 

[Thermal]

"Larceny" is definitely "police speak" for theft; we can be reasonably certain from the store's own admission of its suspicions that they at the very least accused the customers of stealing something, however they chose to precisely word it.

Is it possible the store reported 'possible shoplifting' and the dispatcher translated that to 'larceny in progress'? Remember That Starbucks Thing, where the dispatcher also changed the wording pretty significantly?

No; it's just question-begging. What exactly made it reasonable for the clerk to believe that there was a "fifth item" that hadn't been accounted for? When freely able to speak in its own defense, the store's sole justification for this suspicion is "furtive behavior" on the part of the customers. It is never once mentioned that this clerk ever for instance actually saw them handling a fifth item at any point, or ever saw a fifth item go into the dressing room with them and not come out. There is no reason given aside from "furtive behavior". Contrarily, in their defense, the victims of the false accusation don't provide any information that would explain this mistake. According to them, there were exactly four items, all of which they left laying on a bench outside the dressing room. They don't object that they left some potential fifth item in the dressing room, or that they returned one to the rack, or left it in the pile with the other clothing on the bench and that the store simply miscounted.

Given the fact that this fifth item objectively did not exist, it's up to the store to make a case for why they believe it did, not on me to invent facts to make their proven-wrong suspicion reasonable.

OK. I'm looking at one of my daughter's dresses now. It has a floral pattern on the top, fading to a navy blue at the bottom. If this was folded over Bedard's arm, could you see how it might look like two dresses, one floral and one navy? That could plausibly give the impression of an additional garment. I can see a few ways like this that the clerk could have made an honest mistake.

I consider the claim problematic because it is too vague to be useful for one; but primarily, the store is already on its back foot here. So far we have two opposing claims; it was the customers' that has been proven the most right so far, and the store has already demonstrated that it is willing to be creative with messaging by implying it was wrong of the customers to object to being accused of shoplifting since "that word was never used" even though the store very obviously did suspect them of exactly that, even to the point that they called the police for that very reason. And considering that the store is willing to get very specific about details such as word-choice when it believes they serve its own case, the fact they chose to be vague about whatever the "threat" was has some unavoidable implications. Given the nature of the scene outside - the store employee was attempted to detain them after all - I can very easily see one of the customers saying something along the lines of "if you touch me I'll knock your block off" and the store characterizing this as a threat to the employee's safety even though it is more accurately a warning of self-defense.

Agreed, the store likely spun the wording to their advantage. They also did this after Bedard was publicly calling the store racist, and by name. If she had not spoken to the owners at this time, that would be a lie, and a particularly malicious one, if Bedard's only evidence was the questionable actions of one employee. Actually, Bedard showed no evidence whatsoever that anything was motivated by racism. She only has her say-so.

 

[Thermal]

No offence but do you possibly have a relative or friend who works at Nordstrom? Nothing I have read makes this a well handled situation by the store. Not to mention were I one of the customers I would definitely have told them to get the cops and after the report I would be talking with a lawyer. And looking forward to my later buying sprees on their nickels......

Nope, no Nordstrom's relatives. BTW, in the post you quoted, we were talking about the Brooklyn hipster boutique. Regarding the Nordstom's thing (about which I have only read ddt's link), we are yet again missing the most important piece of information: what aroused suspicion in the first place?

In this corner- we have the 'white person? we must assume they are malicious racists' crowd.

In this corner- we have the 'well, what actually happened, and let's evaluate that' crowd.

I know which corner I am in.

 

[Checkmite]

Is it possible the store reported 'possible shoplifting' and the dispatcher translated that to 'larceny in progress'? Remember That Starbucks Thing, where the dispatcher also changed the wording pretty significantly?

Anything is possible. Is it reasonably probable? I think not, due to the statements of police about the encounter. Specifically this quote from the news article linked in the OP:

"The two women were detained for a brief period of time," the NYPD said in a statement. "During that investigation, no (stolen) property was found and the store employee became uncertain that the two individuals removed any property."

Emphasis mine. The quote explicitly states that during the course of the investigation - apparently when no stolen property was found, or around that time - the store employee became uncertain that anything had been stolen. The word "became" implies a change of state - in this context, of the clerk's certainty that something had been stolen. If she became uncertain, then prior to that time she must have communicated that she was certain.

But this is an ultimately nitpicky tangent. Literally (literally) every single customer walking out the door could theoretically be shoplifting something. As I have already said before, actually confronting a customer - to say nothing of feeling justified in calling the police - really indicates one believes that it's something a little more than a mere "possibility", regardless of whether they choose to report it to the police as shoplifting or possible shoplifting.

OK. I'm looking at one of my daughter's dresses now. It has a floral pattern on the top, fading to a navy blue at the bottom. If this was folded over Bedard's arm, could you see how it might look like two dresses, one floral and one navy? That could plausibly give the impression of an additional garment. I can see a few ways like this that the clerk could have made an honest mistake.

Come on; firstly, this is silly. You expect me to imagine what one of your kid's dresses looks like and then imagine how it might look like two dresses if folded over someone's arm, and in the meantime we don't even know if this analogy remotely describes the events at the store. Secondly, again - if the store had actually stated in its own defense that the employee watched these two women enter the dressing room, watched them leave, and noticed a disparity in the items that went in versus what came out, this would be a point worth arguing. But all they actually gave us is "some furtive behavior", which makes speculating about what may or may not have looked like another dress an exercise in fantasy worldbuilding that serves no point except to concoct a rationalization for finding the store's actions reasonable by supporting a defense they themselves never even made.

Agreed, the store likely spun the wording to their advantage. They also did this after Bedard was publicly calling the store racist, and by name. If she had not spoken to the owners at this time, that would be a lie, and a particularly malicious one, if Bedard's only evidence was the questionable actions of one employee. Actually, Bedard showed no evidence whatsoever that anything was motivated by racism. She only has her say-so.

Wasn't really just the actions of one employee though, was it? I have worked retail in the past - it was quite some time ago; but one thing I have no reason to believe has ever changed is: managers call police. Even if a lower-level employee physically makes the call, it is at the immediate direction of a manager. I exceedingly doubt that a lone store clerk with singular suspicions about shoplifting is permitted to call police on their own initiative. So the fact that the police actually responded to this incident tells me the clerk's shoplifting suspicions were endorsed at the very least by whatever management was on-duty at the time.

 

[fuelair]

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.

You may, then, have missed my posts on the topic!!!

 

[Thermal]

Anything is possible. Is it reasonably probable? I think not, due to the statements of police about the encounter. Specifically this quote from the news article linked in the OP:



Emphasis mine. The quote explicitly states that during the course of the investigation - apparently when no stolen property was found, or around that time - the store employee became uncertain that anything had been stolen. The word "became" implies a change of state - in this context, of the clerk's certainty that something had been stolen. If she became uncertain, then prior to that time she must have communicated that she was certain.

Yes. That's kind of how people work. She was confident there was a fifth dress at first. As she thought about it more, she realized it was at least possible she had jumped the gun. She made a mistake, and realized it. People do that.

But this is an ultimately nitpicky tangent. Literally (literally) every single customer walking out the door could theoretically be shoplifting something. As I have already said before, actually confronting a customer - to say nothing of feeling justified in calling the police - really indicates one believes that it's something a little more than a mere "possibility", regardless of whether they choose to report it to the police as shoplifting or possible shoplifting.



Come on; firstly, this is silly. You expect me to imagine what one of your kid's dresses looks like and then imagine how it might look like two dresses if folded over someone's arm, and in the meantime we don't even know if this analogy remotely describes the events at the store.

You find that description silly? Hard to imagine? A garment with one pattern on top, another on the bottom, and when folded over looks like two separate garments? OK...

Secondly, again - if the store had actually stated in its own defense that the employee watched these two women enter the dressing room, watched them leave, and noticed a disparity in the items that went in versus what came out, this would be a point worth arguing. But all they actually gave us is "some furtive behavior", which makes speculating about what may or may not have looked like another dress an exercise in fantasy worldbuilding that serves no point except to concoct a rationalization for finding the store's actions reasonable by supporting a defense they themselves never even made.

Yeah...umm...about that hilited...from the OP:

A fan of '70s fashion, Bedard picked out a bathing suit and three dresses. A dark-haired clerk told the mother and daughter to share a fitting room to try on the clothes, Bedard said.

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

A fifth garment. Seems to indicate a disparity about what came out.

Wasn't really just the actions of one employee though, was it? I have worked retail in the past - it was quite some time ago; but one thing I have no reason to believe has ever changed is: managers call police. Even if a lower-level employee physically makes the call, it is at the immediate direction of a manager. I exceedingly doubt that a lone store clerk with singular suspicions about shoplifting is permitted to call police on their own initiative. So the fact that the police actually responded to this incident tells me the clerk's shoplifting suspicions were endorsed at the very least by whatever management was on-duty at the time.

All possible. OP doesn't say if a manager authorized anything. YMMV in regard to chain of command in hipster boutiques.

 

[bruto]

Yes. That's kind of how people work. She was confident there was a fifth dress at first. As she thought about it more, she realized it was at least possible she had jumped the gun. She made a mistake, and realized it. People do that.


You find that description silly? Hard to imagine? A garment with one pattern on top, another on the bottom, and when folded over looks like two separate garments? OK...



Yeah...umm...about that hilited...from the OP:



A fifth garment. Seems to indicate a disparity about what came out.



All possible. OP doesn't say if a manager authorized anything. YMMV in regard to chain of command in hipster boutiques.

The clerk who was certain enough of the disparity did not think it over and reconsider. She "became uncertain" only when the police had handcuffed the customers, searched their possessions, and found no stolen dress, and not before. It's pretty clear from the account that she held on to her error for as long as she could.

There is no evidence that there ever was a fifth dress, and the customer claims she pointed this out at the start. Also remember that, according to the customer, the person who sent them to the changing room was not the person who made the allegation.

Attempts to put a spin on this by suggesting that the clerk was justified in noting a disparity depend pretty crucially on there actually having been a disparity, but nothing before or after the event other than the assumption of the clerk suggests that there was. No fifth dress was reported as found in the changing room later, or accidentally sharing a hanger with one of the four.

I think if there had been any way for the owners to suggest that the clerk was not simply wrong, they would have found it, but as they did not, perhaps it's time for others to stop inventing possible scenarios in which she was not simply wrong.

 

[Checkmite]

Yes. That's kind of how people work. She was confident there was a fifth dress at first. As she thought about it more, she realized it was at least possible she had jumped the gun. She made a mistake, and realized it. People do that.

It's easy to put it that way, from the accuser's standpoint. Oh, so the customers didn't steal anything after all - no harm no foul, right? Of course, all the employee had to do was walk back into the store and get on with her day. Oops.

Meanwhile the victims of her "mistake" were called out as thieves and berated in public, told they couldn't leave the store because the police were being called on them, were followed down the street when they walked away from the situation, detained by the police, arrested, handcuffed, and after finally being utterly exonerated had to be treated for cuts and bruises from the handcuffs. That's two lives seriously disrupted because somebody thought it was possible they'd walked out of the store with a completely imaginary item. Do you think for even one moment that if either of these women had accidentally, absent-mindedly dropped a garment into their shopping bag and walked out the door with it only for a police search to turn it up, that an "oh I honestly thought I had left that back in the dressing room, oops" would've gotten them off the hook?

 

[ddt]

A hipster boutique is selling second hand stuff and likely sneers at the idea of security tags, anyway.

I think you got that wrong. They sell "vintage fashion", i.e., new clothes with a retro look.