GridStream Productions

by **Shigy** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:14 am

Poor guy lost his car and it whent downhill from there.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/23/South ... _a_m.shtml

by **Narcotic** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:36 am

WTF......why i avoid the mall

by **Firia** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:56 am

I do occationally ponder incidences involving the poor unfortunate innocents (unfortunately, nothing can be proven here, from the sounds of it). I tend to keep my nose clean. I keep my high see activity on the down low.

However, perhaps a day will come when I'm implicated for a crime I had no knowledge of commiting.

I only hope that should a day like that come, that I can defend against it.

by **Tastyvixen** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:09 am

heh, I got banned from a mall once. LARPing Vampire....
We weren't even doing anything. Midwest USA in the 90s though. We were told we were scaring the customers and loitering (we were loitering). Other then the occasional dirty look from old ladies no one else seemed to care but the security sure did. lol

by **Shigy** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:04 pm

hehe awesome tasty

http://www.youtube.com/user/Tarryk · by **Tarryk** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:20 pm

I've been kicked out of a mall a few times, most notably for flicking pennies at customers in the food court when I was 17, but never outright banned.

This dude got the crap end of the stick, for sure. That just gives a bad name to the mall. I hope they're getting letters about it.

by **Firia** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:00 am

Tarryk wrote:This dude got the crap end of the stick, for sure. That just gives a bad name to the mall. I hope they're getting letters about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets contacted by a lawyer or two about bringing up charges.

by **ivanelme** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:57 am

Firia wrote:
Tarryk wrote:This dude got the crap end of the stick, for sure. That just gives a bad name to the mall. I hope they're getting letters about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets contacted by a lawyer or two about bringing up charges.

He does have a rather good case. Would be even better if the mall has no record to prove the allegations they brought against him. From what I read in the comments the mall is getting a crap ton of angry letters.

by **Nicodar** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:14 pm

I for one don't feel sorry for the guy nor think the mall's security was totally wrong and bad. Be honest if you saw a guy wandering around a parking lot looking over and around various cars, would you immediately think "Hrm, I wonder if he's lost and can't find his car?" If I was working security, I'd be suspicious and yes I would go investigate. And he didn't simply walk across the street, he himself admits to having run across it. Yes, it may have been to avoid the traffic, but if you were security what would it look like to you? It'd look like he was running away from you, wouldn't it? And only an hour to get things straightened out with the police is a relatively short amount of time. And it's not like he was arrested and charged with anything. He was given only a trespass warning at the request of the mall owners (it's their right to say who they do and don't want on their property).

by **Acushla** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:20 pm

At this point it is a question of who's statements are being considered. Security did not ask him if he had a problem and needed help, they asked him to leave the property Immediately .... he did. If he had walked they could have claimed he was defiant of instructions to vacate. No Win situation on that point.
In addition, he 'claims' he was looking over the tops of cars seeking his, in a crowded parking lot, they 'claim' he was looking 'in' cars and trying to open them.
Neither can prove his position and if it was a younger person or a transient I could see Security's point of view.
My personal opinion is that Security over-reacted to the situation and they should at the very least offer an apology. What ever happened to a person enjoying the assumption of Innocence till Guilt is 'proven'.

by **Nicodar** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:05 am

Acushla wrote:Neither can prove his position and if it was a younger person or a transient I could see Security's point of view.
My personal opinion is that Security over-reacted to the situation and they should at the very least offer an apology. What ever happened to a person enjoying the assumption of Innocence till Guilt is 'proven'.

And where's the young person's or transient's assumption of innocence?

by **ivanelme** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:47 am

Nicodar wrote:I for one don't feel sorry for the guy nor think the mall's security was totally wrong and bad. Be honest if you saw a guy wandering around a parking lot looking over and around various cars, would you immediately think "Hrm, I wonder if he's lost and can't find his car?" If I was working security, I'd be suspicious and yes I would go investigate. And he didn't simply walk across the street, he himself admits to having run across it. Yes, it may have been to avoid the traffic, but if you were security what would it look like to you? It'd look like he was running away from you, wouldn't it? And only an hour to get things straightened out with the police is a relatively short amount of time. And it's not like he was arrested and charged with anything. He was given only a trespass warning at the request of the mall owners (it's their right to say who they do and don't want on their property).

I wouldn't immediately think he was trying to break into cars. They shouldn't have pulled up to him and told him to leave without asking what he was doing. If they told him to leave immediately and he did I don't see how they can then claim he was "running away from them." That doesn't make sense to me. If I told someone to leave my shop and they did, I wouldn't turn around and call the cops saying "this man is running away from me after I told him to leave." That just doesn't make sense, that bit alone puts the security into a tight spot.

The whole situation is a security crew going off the deep end.

by **Talidro** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:17 pm

*IF* the article is 100% accurate I'd feel sorry for the guy. However, this article is only representing one side of the story.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Tarryk · by **Tarryk** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:25 pm

I see it from a couple angles here.

Firstly, yes, the article's only one-sided. But they did make a point of TRYING to get all sides of the story, and only ONE of them agreed to interview. That immediately puts stigma on the other side, what do they have to hide unless it's going to make them look bad?

Which, naturally, leads to them looking bad anyway. Whether or not they were wrong to ban him, they should have at least come forward and agreed to an interview to discuss their side of it.

Secondly, it's obviously public now, and this guy obviously was NOT stealing cars. Now if he was walking around sticking his keys into random cars, then he can at least be faulted for being an A-Class Idiot, but not a thief. They banned him for something he didn't do. No matter which way you slice it, them's the facts. They need to lift the ban and apologize to him, period.

Even if by some obscure twist of facts they were in the right for kicking him off the lot (for being an idiot, as it were), they still got bad press for this, and if they knew how basic diplomacy worked, they would unban & apologize now to save face. IMO

by **Nicodar** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:09 pm

Ivanelme wrote:I wouldn't immediately think he was trying to break into cars. They shouldn't have pulled up to him and told him to leave without asking what he was doing. If they told him to leave immediately and he did I don't see how they can then claim he was "running away from them." That doesn't make sense to me. If I told someone to leave my shop and they did, I wouldn't turn around and call the cops saying "this man is running away from me after I told him to leave." That just doesn't make sense, that bit alone puts the security into a tight spot.

The whole situation is a security crew going off the deep end.

Who says they called the cops after he went across the street? It's quite logical to think that they called the cops before they asked him to leave because they thought he was trying to break into cars? Or, at least in my mind, it's not to big of leap they could also have been worried he'd return cause he did leave on foot.

And what would asking him what he was doing prove? Had he been actually trying to break into cars, he wouldn't actually admit to it, now would he? He'd definitely lie about it. And if he was a thief and they let him go they'd still get bad press because of it. So the security people are pretty much damned if they do something and damned if they don't.

Yes, he wasn't doing anything wrong. And, yes, the mall owners would be wrong to keep him banned and owe him an apology. But the security are not the bad guys for doing their jobs.

by **Shigy** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:23 am

I must say I agree with nico about the security there stuffed either way.

GridStream Productions

Can't help feeling sorry for this bloke

Can't help feeling sorry for this bloke

Who is online