b) The kid quit his job.
c) Target refused to press charges, meaning the kid had no record.
Win-win for everyone. No reason to kill yourself.
d) They never proved the kid stole
Yeah, that was my thought. Rather than give the kid a criminal record, he did the “walk of shame” and was let go.
Mom is going to look pretty foolish if it comes out Target had solid evidence the kid was stealing, let him off, tried to teach him not to steal, but also didn’t jeopardize the possibility of future employment.
So, if this lawsuit succeeds, even though the kid was stealing, Target will probably change their policy and every kid caught stealing will now have a criminal record.
Target doesn't determine the policy of the circumstances under which an arrest warrants restraint; that's entirely up to the police.
When Target called the police to arrest the suspect, they had either a plainclothes store detective or videotape of the suspect. They almost certainly also had him with stolen property on his person.
When he got to the office, they got him to sign an admission which, among other things, absolved them from any wrongful termination / false arrest charges, at which point they said: "OK, we're agreeable. You're fired. Goodbye."
Unless this woman gets a Stacey Anthony jury, she is going to get nothing, because unlike the bleeding heart liberals on this thread, agreeing to let the kid go without charging him was a good thing for him, and not any kind of indicator of "lack of evidence."
In future, I guess people think it would be better for Target to have put a conviction in this kid's jacket. Seriously? To whose benefit would that be?