Black teenager arrested after buying expensive belt

[mmhmm]

It has nothing to do with a "someone".

LOL!  Yeah, right.  Tell that to the guy who was cuffed, arrested, and taken to jail for having done absolutely nothing wrong.

[EVT1]

Oct 28, 2013 10:15:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We cannot, however, assume someone is a "bad person" because their skin is dark, or their eyes are blue, or their tie is the wrong color. That, Virgil, is ludicrous.

The assumption, as was clearly stated, is that merchants can identify highly specific demographics for which fraudsters make up a large enough proportion to guarantee that serving these demographics will overwhelm margins and create net losses in a time-amortized sense.

I realize that's a mouthful, but I can't explain it any more simply than that. It has nothing to do with a "someone".

And again your assumption is false out of the gate since we are talking about credit/debit card fraud which only costs the banks/cc companies- doubt it will overwhelm their margins.  Security of the card system is their responsibility.

If we were talking about shoplifting gangs or similar types of theft you would have a point- with this you do not.  Valid ID, Valid card- end of story- zero reason to detain or bother this person, zero reason to notify the authorities.  They could have refused the transaction if they suspected fraud- but they took the money like greedy pigs and then had the kid screwed with- allegedly.  Some one is full of shit on this.  The NYPD should have known better than to make an arrest regardless so they need to pay up.  I think we need a little sunshine on this mess to see who is doing what and why.

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2013 12:04:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 28, 2013 10:15:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The assumption, as was clearly stated, is that merchants can identify highly specific demographics for which fraudsters make up a large enough proportion to guarantee that serving these demographics will overwhelm margins and create net losses in a time-amortized sense.

I realize that's a mouthful, but I can't explain it any more simply than that. It has nothing to do with a "someone".

And again your assumption is false out of the gate since we are talking about credit/debit card fraud which only costs the banks/cc companies- doubt it will overwhelm their margins.  Security of the card system is their responsibility.

If we were talking about shoplifting gangs or similar types of theft you would have a point- with this you do not.  Valid ID, Valid card- end of story- zero reason to detain or bother this person, zero reason to notify the authorities.  They could have refused the transaction if they suspected fraud- but they took the money like greedy pigs and then had the kid screwed with- allegedly.  Some one is full of shit on this.  The NYPD should have known better than to make an arrest regardless so they need to pay up.  I think we need a little sunshine on this mess to see who is doing what and why.

But this is a hypothetical.   Assume, for a thought experiment only, that the merchant was able to identify Christian homophobic customers as those who would come to the store and yell homophobic  things to the merchant's customers, which  had the effect of overwhelming their margins.    Should the merchant be allowed to bar the homophobic Christians from entering their store?

[Tennesseer]

ArchietheDragon -in your example, I would imagine loud, hateful 'customers' could/would only help the business's margins.  

Think Chic-fil-a from a few months back.

[Virgil Showlion]

And again your assumption is false out of the gate since we are talking about credit/debit card fraud which only costs the banks/cc companies- doubt it will overwhelm their margins. Security of the card system is their responsibility.

I already posted an article that plainly backs up my assertion that credit card fraud has a "major impact on the business" (and it uses those words). At the very least, fraud creates headaches, bureaucracy, and credit card companies ticked off that you're sending them a high volume of fraudulent transactions.

They could have refused the transaction if they suspected fraud- but they took the money like greedy pigs and then had the kid screwed with- allegedly.

They can't refuse the transaction. It would be discrimination. The only basis they had for refusing him is that he fit a profile. Hence the salesperson called the police. Let them deal with it.

The NYPD should have known better than to make an arrest regardless so they need to pay up.

It's. not. them. paying.

You live in a fantasy land if you think the officers who made the arrest are going to be censured any more harshly because some kid is suing for emotional damages. The officers were either censured according to established protocols when the matter came to the attention of their superior, or they were let off with a slap on the wrist. It's done. The rest is meaningless.

Should the merchant be allowed to bar the homophobic Christians from entering their store?

Absolutely.

A merchant should be able to post a sign on the door stating "Christians Not Welcome", and ban anybody with crucifix jewelry, etc. without any justification whatsoever.

I wouldn't recommend that he do it, and I don't think that it's right that he do it, but in a free society he should certainly have the right to.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 28, 2013 13:04:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

And again your assumption is false out of the gate since we are talking about credit/debit card fraud which only costs the banks/cc companies- doubt it will overwhelm their margins. Security of the card system is their responsibility.

I already posted an article that plainly backs up my assertion that credit card fraud has a "major impact on the business" (and it uses those words). At the very least, fraud creates headaches, bureaucracy, and credit card companies ticked off that you're sending them a high volume of fraudulent transactions.

They could have refused the transaction if they suspected fraud- but they took the money like greedy pigs and then had the kid screwed with- allegedly.

They can't refuse the transaction. It would be discrimination. The only basis they had for refusing him is that he fit a profile. Hence the salesperson called the police. Let them deal with it.

The NYPD should have known better than to make an arrest regardless so they need to pay up.

It's. not. them. paying.

You live in a fantasy land if you think the officers who made the arrest are going to be censured any more harshly because some kid is suing for emotional damages. The officers were either censured according to established protocols when the matter came to the attention of their superior, or they were let off with a slap on the wrist. It's done. The rest is meaningless.

Should the merchant be allowed to bar the homophobic Christians from entering their store?

Absolutely.

A merchant should be able to post a sign on the door stating "Christians Not Welcome", and ban anybody with crucifix jewelry, etc. without any justification whatsoever.

I wouldn't recommend that he do it, and I don't think that it's right that he do it, but in a free society he should certainly have the right to.

But where does ìt all end?  The Balkanization of Canada and the U.S.?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 28, 2013 13:38:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 28, 2013 13:04:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I already posted an article that plainly backs up my assertion that credit card fraud has a "major impact on the business" (and it uses those words). At the very least, fraud creates headaches, bureaucracy, and credit card companies ticked off that you're sending them a high volume of fraudulent transactions.

They can't refuse the transaction. It would be discrimination. The only basis they had for refusing him is that he fit a profile. Hence the salesperson called the police. Let them deal with it.

It's. not. them. paying.

You live in a fantasy land if you think the officers who made the arrest are going to be censured any more harshly because some kid is suing for emotional damages. The officers were either censured according to established protocols when the matter came to the attention of their superior, or they were let off with a slap on the wrist. It's done. The rest is meaningless.

Absolutely.

A merchant should be able to post a sign on the door stating "Christians Not Welcome", and ban anybody with crucifix jewelry, etc. without any justification whatsoever.

I wouldn't recommend that he do it, and I don't think that it's right that he do it, but in a free society he should certainly have the right to.

But where does ìt all end?  The Balkanization of Canada and the U.S.?

It would be ghettoization--basically the same thing on a smaller scale--and the US is already highly ghettoized. Ghettoization is a function of public attitudes and economic conditions, not anti-discrimination laws.

I can't say that anti-discrimination laws are categorically worthless, because I can think of at least a few situations where they might... sort of... assist in breaking down walls between people. But I see them as barely more than a veneer that politicians and social engineers put up to convince themselves that their endless laws and activism and affirmative action were somehow responsible for the shift in societal attitudes during the 20th century.

I know you were there and that you believe all the laws and speeches and demonstrations were a driving force rather than useless theatrics that accompanied an underlying shift in attitudes over a period of ten generations, going all the way back to the 1700's. I don't believe this. I see it all as the aftermath of changes that had already occurred and had simply grown to the point where it was expedient for politicians, lawmakers, and activists to embrace them and do their best to take credit for them. Anti-discrimination laws were just one of the rabbits they pulled out of a hat.

They're not bad laws per se, but they're certainly not going to change anything if society ever shifts back towards racist or discriminatory attitudes. They can be extremely impractical, antithetical to freedom, a waste of time and resources. All to maintain a veneer that we're a happy enlightened society where race means nothing and statistics mean nothing and every man lawyers his words in polite company.

[mmhmm]

Oct 28, 2013 12:24:14 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 28, 2013 12:04:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And again your assumption is false out of the gate since we are talking about credit/debit card fraud which only costs the banks/cc companies- doubt it will overwhelm their margins.  Security of the card system is their responsibility.

If we were talking about shoplifting gangs or similar types of theft you would have a point- with this you do not.  Valid ID, Valid card- end of story- zero reason to detain or bother this person, zero reason to notify the authorities.  They could have refused the transaction if they suspected fraud- but they took the money like greedy pigs and then had the kid screwed with- allegedly.  Some one is full of shit on this.  The NYPD should have known better than to make an arrest regardless so they need to pay up.  I think we need a little sunshine on this mess to see who is doing what and why.

But this is a hypothetical.   Assume, for a thought experiment only, that the merchant was able to identify Christian homophobic customers as those who would come to the store and yell homophobic  things to the merchant's customers, which  had the effect of overwhelming their margins.    Should the merchant be allowed to bar the homophobic Christians from entering their store?

I think a charge of disturbing the peace might work quite well in that instance, Archie.  If these folks are yelling at customers, they are definitely disturbing the peace.  In that case, a call to the police would be warranted.  In the case of the young man arrested in this case, he didn't do anything that could be considered breaking a law.

[mmhmm]

A merchant should be able to post a sign on the door stating "Christians Not Welcome", and ban anybody with crucifix jewelry, etc. without any justification whatsoever.

I wouldn't recommend that he do it, and I don't think that it's right that he do it, but in a free society he should certainly have the right to.

He does have the right to do so.  He also has the responsibility to accept any penalties that accompany his decision to do so.  We each live with that type of decision every day.

[EVT1]

Looks like someone is going to get to the bottom of this:

www.nbcnews.com/business/ny-state-probes-shoppers-racism-charges-against-macys-barneys-8C11490886
 
      This was an operation of the New York City Police Department," Macy's spokeswoman Elina Kazan said in a statement, adding that store "personnel were not involved" in the incident. 

     Barneys Chief Executive Mark Lee likewise said his employees had no part in either incident involving black customers.

     "We believe that no Barneys employees were involved in those incidents," Lee said after a meeting in Harlem with civil rights leader Al Sharpton and members of his National Action Network. "No one from Barneys brought them to the attention of our internal security and no one from Barneys reached out to external authorities."

So someone is lying.

     Barneys and the New York City Police were named in a lawsuit filed by Trayon Christian last week. The lawsuit said police had detained him in April for two hours after he bought a $349 Ferragamo belt, and they then released him without charging him.

     Kayla Phillips, a 21-year-old nursing school student, said she was surrounded by four undercover police officers in February after leaving Barneys with a $2,500 Celine handbag she had purchased.

     Two Macy's shoppers have made similar complaints. One was actor Rob Brown of HBO's "Treme," who said he was handcuffed and held for an hour after purchasing a $1,350 gold Movado watch for his mother, the Daily News said.

     The fourth complaint was filed by Art Palmer, 56, an exercise trainer from Brooklyn. He told the Daily News that he was surrounded by police, who demanded to see identification after he used his credit card to buy $320 worth of Polo shirts and ties at Macy's in April.

My guess is the NYPD is behind this- maybe convinced some employees to help them in their fishing expeditions.  If true the person behind the operations needs to be fired.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

While I can't say I know the reason behind the arrest, who called, or even if anybody called the police...I would guess that the store has many AA customers.  So if a store employee called, I would be curious who called and why did they call this particular time, about this particular guy.  Before anybody brings up the 4 examples listed in the thread, I wouldn't say 4 incidents makes it a common occurence, especially when the number of AA customers is taken into consideration.  I would think if a 911 call was made, it would have been taped...but I wouldn't think it would be put on a high priority for police to answer all that quickly.  If the store didn't call and the police officers were just looking to shake down somebody, it would make sense that they would try to cover it up by saying the store called them first.  Either way, somebody isn't telling the truth. 

I know I can't be the only person who was hassled by security and the police when I was young.  I know I can't be the only person who was pulled over multiple times when I was in a care full of young guys...I don't remember us ever getting a ticket, but we did seem to get pulled over for whatever reason.  I didn't get arrested, but I know some people who I sure thought they were because they talked back to the police for hassling us for no reason. 

I'm not discounting race as a possible factor in this case, but I also don't necessarily go right there just because of the victim's skin color either. 

[EVT1]

No telling how common it is since the vast majority aren't going to report it once they are let go.  I call it harassment- and if the stores did not instigate it I imagine they would be pissed of at the NYPD bothering their customers on their property or after leaving it.

I know I would be very pissed off if a police officer stopped me after buying some shirts- so after showing an ID and a receipt that better be the end of it or they better have a damn good explanation because as far as I am concerned they have no cause to detain me after that and every minute they do is going to be money in my pocket down the road.  They don't do that around here though- it's a NYC thing- goes along with their stop and frisk bullshit.  They think they have free reign to fuck with whomever they feel like- and so far they do.  What else are a bunch of cops walking around collecting a paycheck going to do other than fuck with people.

[EVT1]

Update:  www.nbcnews.com/business/treme-actor-pursues-class-action-profiling-lawsuit-vs-macys-2D11591435

     Brown withdrew the lawsuit he filed last month in New York State Supreme Court against the department store and the New York City Police Department and, instead, filed it with the U.S. District Court in lower Manhattan seeking class-action status.

     Brown said undercover police handcuffed him and put him in a cell at Macy's Manhattan flagship store in June after an employee there accused him of credit card fraud.

     The employee and the police, he said, could not believe that Brown, as a young, black man, could afford to buy a $1,300 watch and some sunglasses without stealing someone else's card.

     The lawsuit says that after realizing their mistake, the police officers apologetically offered to escort him to his next destination in a police car with flashing lights.


Sure- a police escort would make everything better

Bold mine- WTF does a department store have a cell in it for?!?!  False imprisonment comes to mind.

[zibazinski]

I thought my poor aunt was nuts.