Shopping While Black

[Dr. Keith]

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?

That point, well made.

 

[ddt]

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.

You're piling those assumptions mightily on, aren't you? What about: her racism, consciously or unconsciously, made her jump to conclusions about Ms. Bedard and her daughter. And yes, often people don't think about the consequences of their words or actions.

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?

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

As to the question when Ms. Bedard pulled the race card, there are two polar opposite explanations. Amarcord, the store, says immediately. Per the Gothamist:

One of our employees politely approached two patrons to clarify a situation, which was immediately countered with the accusation that our intentions were racially motivated.

while Ms. Bedard's statement implies only later or none at all. News NY1:

Attorney Daniel Kron: It looked as though on our security cameras that they may have come out of the fitting rooms with less items then they came in with. A simple inquiry was all that was made, and immediately thereafter this turned into a racial discrimination case, where there is no basis whatsoever for that.

Boone: But isn't that an accusation of shoplifting if you walk out and somebody says you came out of the fitting room with less items than you went in with?

Kron: Nobody said that.

To begin with the last: that is weaseling, of course shoplifting is the implication of that question. But his first sentence is most curious: was the blonde clerk continuously monitoring the security video? That's the only way I can make sense of that claim. Note also the piling up of "looked as" and "may", there's absolutely no certainty in that statement.

Per the Gothamist article, Kron has also elucidated on the "furtive behavior":

Kron notes that Amarcord has been in business for almost twenty years, and says "this is the very first time something like this has ever transpired. Clearly there is no pattern of anything like this happening. Nothing racially motivated happened. It just so happened that it was an African-American who had gone into a dressing room with another woman, which is also a red flag. When two people go into the same dressing room together, that's a red flag that something might be going on."

I think the guy is throwing in his own glasses with this statement. Apparently, it's (only) a red flag when a black woman goes into the dressing room with another woman. Note also that according to Ms. Bedard in the link in the OP, it was the dark-haired clerk who assigned them one dressing room. Personally, I don't see that as odd behavior, but I'll leave others to judge that.

Kron says the store has footage that shows the "furtive type of behavior that was being exhibited. They were not acting as though they were normal customers trying on clothing."

Asked about what specifically prompted the employee to suspect that shoplifting might be happening, Kron says Bedard and her daughter "were piling up clothing" on a bench behind the register, and "constantly going in and out of the same dressing room, coming out with different numbers of clothing. One of the sales managers saw them go into dressing room with four [items] and believed she saw them come out with three. That alone prompted her to question, aside from all the furtive behavior... that just prompted the question, which is, 'would you mind just showing the articles [of clothing] you have.'"

I'm a bit at a loss what is suspicious about this behavior. It's the first time they had a (female) customer who tried on a dozen different outfits? Or is it that they each time used the same dressing room - yes, that must be it, they should have changed dressing rooms with each fitting.

All in all, the reasons of the blonde clerk to try to stop them are razor-thin.

 

[bruto]

I see also from the above account that the lawyer is now asserting that when they went in with four items it looked like three, when all the previous accounts are pretty consistent in saying that it looked like four when it was mistakenly believed they'd taken in five.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yawn...yet another 'it just had to be racist' incident when race does not appear to have been the problem. The sales associate thought there was a fifth item unaccounted for after they left the changing room. She was apparently wrong. The accused reacted irrationally, pulling the 'race card', giving them the double flip off, and leaving. An accused being black and the accuser being white is not automatically an incidence of racism.

Up next "why are black people such bad drivers that they get pulled over all the time?"

 

[fuelair]

Up next "why are black people such bad drivers that they get pulled over all the time?"

Another good point - and how do they end up shot many of those times?
Shot for following police instructions by reaching for their ID?

 

[Thermal]

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.

Great point, and agreed. I think all agree that the clerk was wrong about there being an extra dress.

So what are the possible scenarios being invented? She is racist...she is stupid...she is a liar...

 

[Thermal]

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?

No, I don't. In fact, I wouldn't expect anyone, of any race, to get away with saying a dress 'accidentally fell into' their bag. You would, I take it? We must live in very different worlds.

 

[Thermal]

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

Again, I beg to differ. According to their website, the store sells an 'inventory ranging from the Victorian era to the 1990's', primarily from scavenging in Europe (link to store's website below, see about us page). Do you have a cite for this new clothes claim?

Also interesting on this site is that the owners have tried to contact Bedard, with no response. The store posted an apology on Bedard's husband's FB, where he was organizing a boycott. It was promptly deleted.

https://www.amarcordvintagefashion.com/blogs/in-response/in-response

 

[Thermal]

You're piling those assumptions mightily on, aren't you? What about: her racism, consciously or unconsciously, made her jump to conclusions about Ms. Bedard and her daughter. And yes, often people don't think about the consequences of their words or actions.


As to the question when Ms. Bedard pulled the race card, there are two polar opposite explanations. Amarcord, the store, says immediately. Per the Gothamist:

while Ms. Bedard's statement implies only later or none at all. News NY1:

To begin with the last: that is weaseling, of course shoplifting is the implication of that question. But his first sentence is most curious: was the blonde clerk continuously monitoring the security video? That's the only way I can make sense of that claim. Note also the piling up of "looked as" and "may", there's absolutely no certainty in that statement.

Per the Gothamist article, Kron has also elucidated on the "furtive behavior":

I think the guy is throwing in his own glasses with this statement. Apparently, it's (only) a red flag when a black woman goes into the dressing room with another woman. Note also that according to Ms. Bedard in the link in the OP, it was the dark-haired clerk who assigned them one dressing room. Personally, I don't see that as odd behavior, but I'll leave others to judge that.

I'm a bit at a loss what is suspicious about this behavior. It's the first time they had a (female) customer who tried on a dozen different outfits? Or is it that they each time used the same dressing room - yes, that must be it, they should have changed dressing rooms with each fitting.

All in all, the reasons of the blonde clerk to try to stop them are razor-thin.

All in all, there is only one reason for the clerk's mistake: she thought she saw an additional dress, and was wrong. As I noted earlier, a dress folded in half over the arm can easily look like two separate garments, for example.

Wait...do you agree that this is a plausible, common sense explanation for the clerk...no, anyone... being mistaken about the number of garments someone might be holding? If not, why not?

 

[bruto]

All in all, there is only one reason for the clerk's mistake: she thought she saw an additional dress, and was wrong. As I noted earlier, a dress folded in half over the arm can easily look like two separate garments, for example.

Wait...do you agree that this is a plausible, common sense explanation for the clerk...no, anyone... being mistaken about the number of garments someone might be holding? If not, why not?

I think there are many possible reasons for the clerk's initial mistake, and racism need not be one of them initially. But the manner in which she acted subsequent to making the mistake appears to have been unusually inappropriate. She disbelieved the customer, got the number of garments wrong, apparently disbelieved the security video itself, apparently did not check either with the other clerk or with the existing inventory, and because of this presumed that the sharing of a changing room was "suspicious behavior" when it was, in fact, demanded by another clerk, engaged in an altercation, chased the customers from the store, and either called or caused a call to the police alleging theft.

You surmise that the manner of folding when entering the changing room appeared ambiguous enough to cause an honest mistake in counting, but I have not seen any evidence that this was the case. If this is not a gratuitous explanation based on something other than the evidence presented, I'd be quite happy to see the citation. I have not seen any explanation for the error except that it was an error, and that the clerk adhered to it until the police opened the bags of the handcuffed customers, and even then it was modified to beginning to doubt.

So maybe that clerk was not racist, and her assessment of suspicious behavior was the sort of thing she always does when she is inadequately informed, and maybe she is generally inclined to be careless about counting items, and maybe she is generally inclined to confront customers before checking her own assumptions, but at the very least I would suggest she's not well suited to the job.

 

[Thermal]

I think there are many possible reasons for the clerk's initial mistake, and racism need not be one of them initially. But the manner in which she acted subsequent to making the mistake appears to have been unusually inappropriate. She disbelieved the customer, got the number of garments wrong, apparently disbelieved the security video itself, apparently did not check either with the other clerk or with the existing inventory, and because of this presumed that the sharing of a changing room was "suspicious behavior" when it was, in fact, demanded by another clerk, engaged in an altercation, chased the customers from the store, and either called or caused a call to the police alleging theft.

Do you think the clerk's subsequent reactions may have been a result of one of the women berating her race, her class, and her appearance? Perhaps the clerk was reacting to the threats to her safety? You appear to be discounting these reported behaviors. I would get more aggressive with someone who treated me that way. Lies, do you assume? Why?

You surmise that the manner of folding when entering the changing room appeared ambiguous enough to cause an honest mistake in counting, but I have not seen any evidence that this was the case. If this is not a gratuitous explanation based on something other than the evidence presented, I'd be quite happy to see the citation. I have not seen any explanation for the error except that it was an error, and that the clerk adhered to it until the police opened the bags of the handcuffed customers, and even then it was modified to beginning to doubt.

I offered the example (yes, I said example) of a folded dress looking like two garments in response to posters who did not seen to understand how the clerk could possibly have made a mistake. You may note that one poster claims, with a presumably straight face, that a folded dress looking like two dresses is unimaginable. Silly, even. Am I way out in left field in trying to describe how easy it could be to mistakenly think there was an extra dress?

So maybe that clerk was not racist, and her assessment of suspicious behavior was the sort of thing she always does when she is inadequately informed, and maybe she is generally inclined to be careless about counting items, and maybe she is generally inclined to confront customers before checking her own assumptions, but at the very least I would suggest she's not well suited to the job.

I guess it would depend on how quickly things happened. If the clerk said 'wasn't there another dress' and was immediately met with racial slurs, class insults, and berating her personal appearance, not to mention threats to her safety, then no, I don't think the clerk is so inadequate. I think the women would be to blame for personalizing, escalating, and initiating hostilities. All because a clerk mistakenly thought there was another item.

Should the clerk, for instance, just accept a threat to her safety? Just hang her head and withdraw, or what? Why do you find it odd that, when personally insulted and threatened, the clerk may have gone full-on calling the cops, only to realize later that things had gotten carried away? Serious question.

 

[William Parcher]

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

Vintage means old, and is generally not very recently old. A store that specialises in "vintage clothing" or "vintage fashion" is almost certainly not going to have newly-manufactured clothing that is made to look old, or made to look vintage. That designation is generally called "retro" and is something entirely different.

 

[sadhatter]

Another good point - and how do they end up shot many of those times?
Shot for following police instructions by reaching for their ID?

Yeah, and what about the black on black violence that vastly outnumbers the cops?

Oh **** I ********** up again. I keep forgetting black lives only have to matter to white people.

 

[bruto]

Do you think the clerk's subsequent reactions may have been a result of one of the women berating her race, her class, and her appearance? Perhaps the clerk was reacting to the threats to her safety? You appear to be discounting these reported behaviors. I would get more aggressive with someone who treated me that way. Lies, do you assume? Why?

The report is pretty specific that although the racial slurs may have been immediate, the threats occurred after the clerk pursued the customers out of the store. If the clerk was reacting to threats to her safety, it was prescient.

I offered the example (yes, I said example) of a folded dress looking like two garments in response to posters who did not seen to understand how the clerk could possibly have made a mistake. You may note that one poster claims, with a presumably straight face, that a folded dress looking like two dresses is unimaginable. Silly, even. Am I way out in left field in trying to describe how easy it could be to mistakenly think there was an extra dress?

I don't think it's unimaginable. I just see no evidence that it is what happened, nor any evidence that if it is, any effort was made to straighten it out before blame was attached to the customers. An explanation like that would certainly help the case of the management but it was not made. Instead, we have a contradiction even in how many garments were involved, the lawyer now claiming that there were only four but only three were seen, while the initial account is that four were seen and a fifth presumed.

I guess it would depend on how quickly things happened. If the clerk said 'wasn't there another dress' and was immediately met with racial slurs, class insults, and berating her personal appearance, not to mention threats to her safety, then no, I don't think the clerk is so inadequate. I think the women would be to blame for personalizing, escalating, and initiating hostilities. All because a clerk mistakenly thought there was another item.

of course that might be what happened but that is not what is reported.

Should the clerk, for instance, just accept a threat to her safety? Just hang her head and withdraw, or what? Why do you find it odd that, when personally insulted and threatened, the clerk may have gone full-on calling the cops, only to realize later that things had gotten carried away? Serious question.

As stated before, the report says the clerk confronted the customer and said the security video would show the truth, the customer said it would, and left the store, whereupon the clerk pursued her, and that is when the threats, if any, occurred.

Remember too that the account of threats is from the clerk, and while she might be telling the truth, her reliability is not impeccable, and the stories of the management do not entirely match.

And at the root of all this we have the report of the clerk that the customers were acting suspiciously, specifically because they were occupying the same changing room. Now that may not be racially loaded but considering that the customers were doing EXACTLY what another clerk told them to do, it certainly seems odd that this should be considered suspicious behavior, and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that it's not a customary charge against customers who do the bidding of the clerks.

We can only surmise certain things, but as long as we're imagining what might have happened, we might imagine that if the account of the management is true, and the customers were believed to be acting suspiciously, it's quite possible the clerk acted from the start as one might expect a sales clerk to act when confronting people she already suspects of misbehavior. Remember that although we cannot know how everyone behaved, gestured, looked, and so forth, we do know from the account given that the suspicion preceded any confrontation.

Of course it's possible that the whole incident was not racially motivated, or that, if it was, it was not intentionally so. But if it was not, then at the very least the business owners had better straighten out their act, because their employees are acting in such seriously conflicting ways that a prudent customer would be well advised to avoid the place.

 

[CORed]

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.

First rule of retail shopping. If you are just browsing without a clear idea of what you are looking for, a salesperson will immediately appear. If you are interested in a particular item and want to ask some questions, a salesperson will be nowhere they can be found, or busy with another customer.

 

[CORed]

I've only been accused of shoplifting once in my life. I'm white, as was my accuser, so I don't suppose it's applicable to this thread other than as general background information.

I was walking through an aisle of a liquor store, not in my home city. I was pretty much alone (maybe a customer or two in other aisles, but nobody in my aisle). Out of nowhere (so it seemed anyway) a woman walked toward me at a brisk pace, and says, in an angry tone, "What did you just put in your pocket !!?.

I said something like "Uh, nothing", thought a moment then, "My glasses". To her credit, the woman realized pretty quickly (probably largely due to my complete befuddlement), that she had made a mistake, and then started apologizing profusely. I'm still not sure where she was watching me from (possibly watching a monitor in a back room), but she apparently saw me put my glasses in my pocket (they were distance-vision glasses I used for driving. I took them off to read labels better), and thought I had put a bottle of liquor in my pocket.

ETA: I put the glasses in a shirt pocket, there wasn't much of the store's merchandise, except those little single serving bottles, that would have even fit there. I don't remember if there were any of those in the aisle I was in at the time.

 

[Information Analyst]

The women had bought some clothes, so the store had their credit card data, and could find out who they were. They could always report it later.

Although considering how lax US rules are on credit cards (compared to Europe), having paid by card doesn't mean much.

 

[Information Analyst]

Daily Mail headlines are not always accurate!

Mrs Analyst recently moved from a red-marking senior school to a non-red-marking primary, although she reckons it's just down to individual school policy.

 

[Information Analyst]

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

"Vintage is old and horrible; retro is new and horrible, but made to look old and horrible. "

 

[Checkmite]

All in all, there is only one reason for the clerk's mistake: she thought she saw an additional dress, and was wrong. As I noted earlier, a dress folded in half over the arm can easily look like two separate garments, for example.

No, I don't believe the clerk ever thought she directly saw an additional dress at any time, mistakenly or otherwise.