Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I wanna know is....WHAT THE F***? Cops put their hands on my child without knowing for sure they had something in their pockets
Well Duh...how were they supposed to know for sure if they DIDN'T frisk him? That's the point....They didn't know what he might have in his pockets. Best case is he had nothing. Worst case he had a gun or knife or other weapon. They'd be stupid not to frisk him. I would think you and his dad would understand that and try to keep some perspective.
I used to do Loss prevention for a retailer, not Wal-Mart, but they all run about the same way. In most retailers that employ loss prevention or asset protection, managers and store employees are NOT allowed to approach suspected shoplifters per company policy. That is because store employees and management are NOT trained to spot all elements of proof necessary to detain a suspected shoplifter. The suspect must have been 1) observed entering the department. In this case, the section of DVDs. That's so that it can be noted what the subject was already carrying/wearing when they entered. 2) They have to be observed selecting the merchandise. 3) They have to be observed concealing the merchandise. 4) they have to be observed leaving the department 5) they have to be observed passing the point of sale (cash registers). In stores like Walmart where there are registers all over the store, a subject can be stopped on the sales floor for unlawful concealment when they are observed concealing the merchandise. If all of these elements are not met, and a person is detained and found NOT to have any merchandise, it is considered a non productive detainment and opens the company up for lawsuits. The OP COULD choose to pursue it, especially with the manager admitting that they goofed. In the company that I worked for, people were FIRED for erroneously detaining folks. Especially if there was a stink raised about it. Most times the company would try to avoid a lawsuit and appease the customer by offering them a store gift card/ merchandise credit anywhere from $200- $1000, depending on the severity (embarrassment) of the stop.
I have to tell you, even after I stopped doing LP work, and when I was shopping and spotted people stealing in stores, I never called the police myself. Personally, I've never had anyone take it upon themself to call the police. I always find a store employee or manager and let them know that I've observed someone removing tags and concealing. Since the employee or manager didn't personally observe the concealment, the best they can do is "customer service" the subject to death by continuosly asking "Do you need help... would you like a cart for your items..are you ready to check out," etc. but they are not supposed to ever accuse anyone of stealing.
Sandy - I understand how you feel. It sounds like you have a good kid and that is what is making you so upset. I think what everyone else is saying is also true - it doesn't sound like the cops did anything wrong. They were just doing their job. I think the best way to handle it is to be as calm as possible - explain to your son that he was out after curfew and that contributed to the problem. I agree with the other poster - I would take my son back to the Wal-Mart and speak to the manager. I would want to be assured that he would not be banned and hopefully the manager would apologize to your son. Maybe your son would even apologize to the manager for being out after curfew.
Remember that this is a learning experience for your son - how you handle it could influence him for years to come. Try to make it end on a positive note!
I think the situation stinks. If this happened to my 15 year old I'd feel terrible about it too. The fact is: don't break curfew. You (the 15 year old) open yourself up to other possibilities of crimes. I would like to see the Walmart manager explain the error to the police in some way (and maybe he already did), but don't expect an apology from the police. I have never heard of that happening .
For what it is worth, I think most parents in your shoes would be very upset...at least initially. Being subjected to a police stop and frisk would be a scarry thing, especially to a child who is generally a good kid with no experience with being in trouble. Sounds like he is the kind of boy who would be afraid to have to face the principle, much less the police.
I think I would take him to the police station and let them explain to him the importance and reason behind the curfew and the reasons behind their action. This would be a good life lesson continued AND would help your son not view the police as the 'bad guys' from this point forward.
Perhaps the police WERE gruff with him and overly aggressive. But their are reasons behind this that they can explain too. As public servants, they should be glad to address this with you and him as a teachable thing rather than advasarial.
Good luck with this. Take a deep breath and know that at least your son is safe and it will be okay.
See specifically Chapter 15 Section 7 subsection 154. Seems that since mom was technically not aware of the child's whereabouts that indeed, he was in violation of the curfew.
....the entire situation was blown way of proportion by all of the ADULTS involved when there were 3 teenagers looking at MOVIES minding their own business, by the admission of the manager they weren't even rowdy. So...to frisk them right there, in Electronics, shove them in the back like felons even when they didn't have a thing on them but brownies seems like excess to me!!! I don't know about y'all but if it were your kid you might think different.....
The Charlotte city code says that a kid in violation of curfew can be considered a delinquent in the eyes of the law and is subject to NC court involvement for juvenile delinquents. I don't see what the police did that was wrong. The kids were on private property in violation of the curfew law, were accused of stealing, the police frisked them at the management's request, found nothing, and let them go. They got off pretty lucky. If there are adults blowing this out of proportion, it's not the ones at the store.
I think the anger should be directed at the parents of the friend they were supposed to be staying with and/or the 20 year old who should have known better. They had to be out pretty late to be in violation so some adult failed in their responsibility. In any case, if they got shaken down by the police a bit. Good. Kids are too coddled these days and this will let them know there is a real world out there. Like the others, I say let it go.
You asked for advice and given the information posted, this is how I see it. If instead you were asking for some sympathy I can't say that I have much for this situation. If the kid had been robbed, was dying from cancer, got in a bad car accident, etc etc, then it would be deserved of some. Otherwise, be glad he is fine and be happy that you are not having to deal with a for more serious situation.
See specifically Chapter 15 Section 7 subsection 154. Seems that since mom was technically not aware of the child's whereabouts that indeed, he was in violation of the curfew.
You are a guardian once the person leaves you in their care. I don't think he was in violation if he was with the 20 year old. I doubt if they considered the 20 year old his guardian. Just because his mother did not know that they stopped at a store; the mother clearly handed her son over to this responsible person and left him in charge of getting to their destination. I'm not taking any sides, but I will be peeved, nevertheless, at searching my minor. I will have every high powered lawyer I work with writing letters on my behalf. I'm not a fan of lawsuits, sometimes, we just have to use the tactics to get our point across.
Section 2 of Chapter 15: Accompanied by an adult 18 years of age or older authorized by the parent or guardian of such juvenile to take the parent's or guardian's place in accompanying the juvenile for a designated period of time and purpose within a specified area.
This 20 year old was satisfying that clause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
