View Single Post
Old 03-24-2003, 09:32 AM   #18
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
Well the charges deserved to be dropped because they were ridiculous.
AAAAARRRRRGGHHHH!!!! {bangs head against wall - then waits for "little stars" to disappear before continuing}

The POLICY may have been ridiculous...but the charges were NOT!!!

There has been much speculation to the actions and motives of both parties in this incident...so let's look at what we actually know occurred.

1. Stephen Downs and his son went to Crossgates Mall WITHOUT the controversial "Peace T-shirts" - so they were wearing regular shirts when they went in.

2. As the entered the mall, they passed a sign explaining the mall's new policy regarding "potentially offensive message apparal". Whether they actually read the signs or not is unknown...but both claimed they were NOT aware of the policy.

3. While shopping in the mall, they stop at a store that makes custom T-shirts. They each decide to have a shirt made that reflects their views of the impending War with Iraq.

4. After having the new shirts made, father and son put their brand new shirts on. It is unknown if they took their other shirts off (which meant they would have had to use a dressing room or bathroom to change) or if they just put the new shirts on over the top of the old ones. It doesn't really matter. What is important is that they DID put the new shirts on immediately and that they also had another shirt with them to wear.

5. Robert Williams (the mall security guard) and his partner see Stephen Downs and his son wearing these new shirts in the Food Court area and decide to "observe them".

6. After a few minutes, Williams and his partner approach the two men because they claim the two were "bothering other customers". Unfortunately, there have been no specific details provided as to exactly what behavior they were exhibiting that qualified as "bothering other patrons".

7. Robert Williams and his partner approach the two men, explain the mall's new policy, and ask them to remove their new shirts. This makes the argument of the Downs not seeing the signs at the entrance a moot point. The policy has now been explained to them by an authorized representative of the mall...and they have been asked to comply with the policy.

8. The younger Downs agrees to remove his shirt, but his father does not. He refuses to remove his shirt even though he has been told it violates mall policy. Given his refusal, Robert Williams follows established protocol and asks Mr. Downs to leave the premises if he won't remove his shirt. This is ALSO met with refusal. So now Mr. Downs is being "confrontational" with the security guard in the middle of the Food Court (creating a fair spectacle in the process).

9. Since Stephen Downs refuses to comply with mall policy AND refuses to leave the premises (which is private property), Robert Williams now has no other choice but to call the local police and have Mr. Downs arrested for trespassing.

And THAT is what he was charged with - TRESPASSING!! NOT "wearing an offensive shirt".


Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
As to this guy getting sacked - what reason did the employers give him? Much as I dislike the American spawned trend of "sue at the drop of a hat", if the implication was not related to performance, and just related to publicity about the case then he has a wrongful dismissal suit. One wonders why he is not pursuing that option, and it is suggestive that the company has other grounds for making the dismissal stick (ie something like incompetence or heavy handedness on the part of the guard).
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING, Davros!!! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Cloudy listed another example of a close friend and several of her colleagues that were fired - even though they were following established policies by their employer. Out of all those fired, only ONE decided to pursue the issue in court. So - by your logic - the others must have actually been guilty of other offensives.

I'm disappionted you would use the "guilty by default" argument, Davros. I really expected better than that from you.

My own home state has the same "policy" regarding employers. They can terminate your employment without giving any solid reason. All they have to do is say that "your services are no longer needed" and *POOF* - you're history.

I have had this happen twice and my wife had it happen once to her. Trust me, there is NO RECOURSE in this situation. In the first instance, I had called in sick. My symptoms were so severe that I could barely get out of bed. When I called in, I was told to report to the bosses office immediately. I was then fired - even though I still had over a week of "sick time" that I had not used. In the other two instances, my wife and I had both found other jobs and were terminated immediately when we turned in our advance notice that we would be leaving.

So - just because the guard isn't automatically sueing does NOT mean that he must be guilty of other offenses.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline