posted on March 7, 2001 02:01:20 PM
In a litigatious society, yes. You can sit on the sidelines and moralize or you can take payment for wrongs done to you. This person was wronged and it's only a matter of how much.
Or is a "we're so sorry we treated you like sh*t" enough for you, xardon? Time after time?
The mechanism is in place, they are ready for it to be used, and you don't for some perverse idea of rightness and fairness? How silly can you get?
They'll stick it to you without batting an eye.
posted on March 7, 2001 02:14:08 PM
The woman went to a store and triggered the alarm on the way out. Store employess searched her stuff. Nothing found. Attitude was given and received. Feathers got ruffled. Nobody got mauled. Nobody got hurt.
An apology on the part of the store would have been appropriate. The 100 bucks was nice. It was a fair settlement of a minor dispute.
I don't like the prevailing attitude that every negative incident in life should be looked at as a potential lottery win.
I think I've got a fairly decent grasp on the concept of right and wrong. Not everyone does.
posted on March 7, 2001 02:24:39 PM
xardon - I don't look at these things like they are a lottery win, and I agree with you sizing up of this incident however there are more serious offenses that occur and I am all for business being nailed to wall when circumstances call for it.
This is my perspective based on experiencing outrageous mistreatment by people at work abusing their power or overstepping their bounds. I am not claiming to be a shrinking rose, on the contrary,BUT incidents like this do take their toll and think the "toll" should be paid by the abuser not the abused.
If at some point in my life some jury wants to make an example of some business and my name is on the paper, that is fine with me. Would I file a frivolous lawsuit?
No. Never have and never will. VeryModern Space Junk
posted on March 7, 2001 02:26:29 PMAn apology on the part of the store would have been appropriate. The 100 bucks was nice. It was a fair settlement of a minor dispute.
I don't like the prevailing attitude that every negative incident in life should be looked at as a potential lottery win.
posted on March 7, 2001 02:33:22 PM
It appears to me to be a very trivial incident. Nobody intended to set the alarm
off.
It's happened to me before. The clerk forgot
to remove a security tag. They, of course
have to look for the tag so that it can be
removed. Otherwise, the alarm would go off
again.
posted on March 7, 2001 02:33:31 PM
I just wanted to add...
I am not an opportunist as much as someone who is going to stand up for myself.
I have been "handled" by the PR departments of more than several large corporations starting from the time I was 17 years old and krs is correct. Their job is to shut you up and shut you up a cheaply as possible - limit their exposure.
It is not nice, not nice at all, and I since I have lived it first hand, I am in a position to judge. Matter of facts, their techniques are shameful.
You've inferred a criticism of your actions that I did mean to imply. You did not initiate a frivilous lawsuit. I find that commendable and evident of a measure of character which has already been made apparent many times over.
-spelling
[ edited by xardon on Mar 7, 2001 02:38 PM ]
posted on March 7, 2001 02:52:52 PM
Helen - I am in my neighborhood with my child, spending my money.
If they forgot to take off a tag, then they can approach me with "excuse me..." and treat me with a modicum of respect, especially when their own statistics show that 90% of people who set of their alarm are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Big difference from being rushed and overwhelmed and having products I have just paid for OPENED without so much as the courtesy of a spoken word.
The manager who saw the tape agreed that it was egregious and that is why he promptly offered the gc after viewing the security tape.
The problem here is stupid employees but no intent to harm. I consider it (and said so) to me a problem of management to take more care in outlining to the employees how these situations should be handled.
What I told them is that rule #1 should be "the person is overwhelmingly likely to be innocent so treat them as such". Odds are that it is a store error -- so uh.. how about apolozing for delaying me...?
How about a little class?
Some decorum.
It matters to me that my children do not see me mistreated, and when they do then they are going to see me fight back.
posted on March 7, 2001 02:58:59 PM
I think VM's point is very valid.
If you believe that VM's incident is individual, a rarity, and remote, your are badly mistaken.
When is becomes obvious that abuse and indiscretions are flagrant and widespread, then it becomes necessary to "punitive" the offenders into getting their act in order.
The store has a right to use reasonable and lawful measures to prevent theft, however, a malfunctioning detector or a clerk's oversight does not provide reason or immunity to the mishandling of a situation and person, especially in violation of existing law.
If a patrol officer ever stops your vehicle, mishandles you and illegally searches your vehicle, but you are not mauled or (physically) harmed in any manner, just tuck your little "ruffled-feathered" butt back in your vehicle and be on your way. Let the matter pass, especially if the officer apologizes and gives you a dollar.
posted on March 7, 2001 03:13:02 PM
Well, I don't expect a lot of class from all
sales clerks. That is why I would not
be surprised or upset if
they fail to handle the situation with
decorum.
Generally, it happens so often, as you indicated, that employees don't take the alarms seriously.
I am just telling you how I would handle
this situation. In the total scheme of things, it would be a trivial event
to me
posted on March 7, 2001 03:18:26 PM
Forgiving is a voluntary option afforded only the victim, not a 1st stage requirement as demanded by outsiders.
A frivolous suit is one that is brought knowing there was no valid basis, brought only for monetary gain. What may seem petty to one person, may, in fact, have actually and emotionally affected another.
posted on March 7, 2001 03:20:35 PM
Gotcha Helen, and I respect that.
I did what I did and there is probably a third woman out there that would have been traumatized but unable or afraid to complain.
For the record, I have been stopped by an alarm many times in many places, but never had my purchases torn up by a pack of rabid dogs.
Some people like their space and I am one of them, so if you mean to get in my things, you best ask politely for my consent (or get a court order) VeryModern Space Junk
Your analogy is specious, pointedly abrasive, and revelatory of a sorry prediposition towards a self-serving distortion of facts. To suggest a real similarity between an obvious violation of civil rights by a police officer and the heavy handed actions of an overzealous store employee serves no purpose but to mislead and dissemble. Being smitten is no excuse for your apparent lapse of reason. If you truly feel that your comparison is valid, and within the scope and/or intent of my previous post, it is indicative a surprising naivete regarding your claimed profession.
posted on March 7, 2001 05:19:43 PM
I suppose that what that means is that there is no comparison between an officious and abusive store employee and a rightiously officious and abusive police officer. I can accept that, xardon.
posted on March 7, 2001 05:33:27 PM
VeryModern - We just had a middle aged overweight Black man killed here in the Detroit area at a Kroger because he was shop lifting about $200 in meat. The security guards sat on his back and simply smothered him to death. This was in spite of bystanders telling them to get off.
He was shop lifting and had a long string of such pettty offences. Just to let you know that is a Capital crime here in Michigan now.
I know that for sure because he is the second in the space of a year.
I am very very hard of hearing and one day the clerk told me to stop at Farmer Jack and I did not hear him. He grabbed on to my parka and ripped the pocket off. Just then the manager came running up and started apologizing up and down. I told him - "Hey don't worry about it." and reached over and ripped the kids pocket off his shirt, and handed it to him. They were so surprised they couldn't think of anything to say before I walked out.
posted on March 7, 2001 05:46:36 PM
Oh, then you meant that an obvious violation of civil rights should be compensible no matter whether it was done by an overzealous police officer or an overzealous store employee, xardon?
posted on March 7, 2001 05:54:08 PM
Obvious is the key word, krs. It applies to the violation, the interpretation of the circumstances, to you, and to your argument.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:02:09 PM
I gotta cut back. That's twice I've done that this year and with the other guy it was not very neat because when it got to the bottom of the pocket it did not come off and it just ripped a stripe the width of the pocket all the way down to his belt.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:15:47 PM"Obvious is the key word, krs. It applies to the violation, the interpretation of the circumstances, to you, and to your argument."
By that then, xardon, since you find me, my argument, and the violation obvious I'll take you to mean that you agree that a this person is justifiably aggrieved and that action on her part to seek redress is her choice, and if so chosen is warranted by the infringement of her civil rights, a violation which can hardly be termed frivolous no matter to what degree she has been abused.
posted on March 7, 2001 09:02:45 PM
You may take it to mean anything you like, krs. If you see an infringement of civil rights in this case, you are far more discerning than I. I do agree that her option to seek redress could possibly be based on something else; a diagnosis of psychological trauma, perhaps, as you indicated in a previous post.
If you choose now to suggest that the incident rises to the level of what is legally defined as a civil rights violation, you are welcome to your opinion. There are no doubt some who would agree with you. I am not one of them.
posted on March 7, 2001 09:57:43 PM
Understandably. I think that your training would bring you to view a possible civil rights violation as an act by an official entity against an individual, where from mine such violations have been characterized by infringements of basic rights in the workplace and by business entities et al. This situation is of the type, to me, in which there are basic human boundaries which are founded in the civil right of individuals to privacy in their behavior or choice of attire or their personal belongings, which may only be released by the person to lawfully entitled authority and then under somewhat restrictive conditions. Where you may see a probable cause in the fact of the alarm sounding, I see the store , though within it's rights to inquire and even detain pending an investigation by more responsible authority (that's you, bub), not within it's rights to violate the privacy of any individual by a search whether it is of property or person.
