Posted on 01/23/2015 1:29:57 PM PST by BenLurkin
A woman is suing Target, alleging her son committed suicide after being forced to take part in a humiliating disciplinary event in front of co-workers and customers at the Pasadena store where he worked as a cashier.
...
Her son jumped to his death from the roof of the Courtyard Marriott in Monrovia on July 18, three days after he was required by Target management to take part in what the suit calls a walk of shame.
According to the complaint, police and store security met Graham Gentles immediately as he arrived for work, and, at the direction of two members of store management, was handcuffed and led before other store employees to an office.
...
He was questioned in the office, then later taken to the police station, according to the lawsuit. However, he was later released and never charged with any crime, according to the complaint.
...
The walk of shame is a Target policy to purposely cause shame, embarrassment and emotional distress to any Target employee who is suspected of stealing from Target, the suit states. The policy consists of employees being arrested and paraded in handcuffs through the Target store in full view of co-workers and customers.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
“However, the suit alleges that Graham Gentles involvement in a verbal altercation with another Target worker at a bar outside of work hours several months before the handcuffing incident may have prompted management to subject him to the walk of shame.
So it seems he and another target employee had a fight in a bar and he turned on this kid. Target better hope they have more evidence than a potentially false accusation from another employee.
And that alleged probable cause was what?
You claim it exists on what basis?
Because you wish it to?
All they need is reasonable suspicion to arrest him.
That is a lower threshold than probable cause.
Why would cops listen to store management? If they had the goods on the kid, they would have handcuffed him and taken him out to the patrol car. I’m not saying the kid was innocent but this is a very weird story.
Thank you. But in truth, you both run the ping list. I received this ping from Responsiblilty2nd today:
Are we really pro-LIFE?
1/23/2015, 12:56:08 PM · 2 of 7
Is this guy seriously comparing the death of Eric Garner to a child killed in the womb?
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Probable cause isn’t needed for arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is.
When thinking about moral absolutes don’t forget about Ten Commandments #1 and #2... doing these requires having a heart, not a headful of rationalizations...
All good morality has its home in love. Selfishness/hate is the worldly, demonic distortion of this.
You may be right.
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.
I agree — all I was saying is the lawsuit doesn’t sound right. Store management can’t handcuff someone or tell the police to do it. The police have to have their own independent basis for doing it.
Not even a fight.
Just an arguement.
And management could have just asked the kid to come talk.
But (exactly like several wannabe screws here) somebody was getting their jollies by calling in people with guns.
This is the lower end relative of the “Swatting” and one hundred percent of the people defending this are people who would fantasize asked out doing asked out little false accusation themselves when they asked outreach angry at someone.
A disgusting situation that sure brings out like minded individuals for the employee whose Fuze was lit at the bar.
“Also, I would just like to point out to you that reasonable suspicion is the legal standard for arrest, not innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for conviction in a court of law after one has already been charged with a crime.”
That is true. Let me also point out that stores like Target, wal mart et al, have video cameras EVERYWHERE. I do mean coming and going. If that kid walked out of the store with something they have it on camera and that was the time and place for the store detective to make the arrest. To wait for him to show up for work and make an arrest at the door? I have never heard of such a thing. That is just not how it is done.
Things like this create a challenge.
I hope I don’t sound too detached when I point out that God has a plan, however. A dissatisfaction with people who abuse authority in a very hurtful manner can lead to a quest to find God, who really is the ultimate Ombudsman for such things, and thus find peace. There are several biblical passages that express how much God hates such attitudes. He can wait for people to go to hell if they so insist all their lives.
There is a very complex web of events in this creation and one that we cannot see even the better part of.
He was apparently “autism syndrome” or Aspergers. He also served in the US Army, according to his obituary photo album.
I believe it is a good lawsuit, if it can be showed Target uses this method to discourage stealing, by potentially ruining the reputation of an innocent employee.
A veteran... oh boy.
Read a bit more carefully. Target doesn’t say the walk of shame is a “policy”. The lawyer for the family says it is. Lawyers lie. I know that’s a surprise to some but it’s true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.