Police Conduct at the Mall: I Need a Reality Check

[coalition_unwilling]

Just as we were concluding our walk at our local mall today, my wife and I witnessed a site that still bothers me. As we headed towards Macy's on the first floor, I happened to notice two uniformed Los Angeles police officers escorting a middle-aged woman in handcuffs towards us. In her mid- to late thirties, the woman was dressed conservatively in white slacks and a yellow top. She did not look like one of the homeless waifs one sees constantly in Los Angeles but also did not look like Nordstom's material either. Decidedly average looking, nothing exceptional. The two male officers passed us with the woman in cuffs between them. I turned to look and observed that they were walking her the full length of the mall towards the end anchored by Nordstrom's.

My wife and I turned to one another and our reaction seemed near unanimous. "That's not cool," I said. "There's no need whatsoever to humiliate and degrade this person by making her walk exposed to public view for the entire length of the mall." Wife agreed and said she thought the woman had probably been arrested for shop-lifting.

I expressed astonishment that anyone would risk shop-lifting at this time of year when security is apt to be tighter than usual. Wife quickly rebutted me "Oh no," she said. "Even if she's unemployed, I can see that if she has kids, they expect Santa to bring them something. I can just see some dough-eyed kid saying, 'What's Santa going to bring me this year, Mom?'

As we continued to walk, we each grew more incensed that this person, no matter her social standing, should have been forced to walk the length of the mall exposed to public view. Wife said she thought the fact that the two LAPD officers were men and the alleged perpetrator was a woman allowed them to think there was nothing wrong with what they were doing.

So when we reached the Mall's Concierge and Welcome service, we mentioned to one of the "hosts" there how unseemly we had found the whole matter. This host was quick to make excuses for what we had seen. First she said to me, "Sir, if it was LAPD we don't control what they do." We continued to protest that the LAPD had no business perp-walking this person through the mall to humiliate and degade her.

"They could have taken her out of the building through the Macy's exit," I said. "They didn't have to make her walk the entire length of the mall in public in handcuffs."

Then the host said, "Sir, i was unemployed and I never shop-lifted." I pointed out that I was not saying that shop-lifting was justifiable but that I was objecting to the LAPD publicly humiliating a citizen when there was no need for them to do so. The host fell back on the "We don't control the LAPD" line as wife and I walked away, me saying that what they had done and the Mall allowing it was the height of 'tacky' and very 'declasse' (classless), I could just tell that this host who had to be working class was decidedly not getting why what we had seen was so offensive.

However, after the movie was over, wife and I somewhat undermined our high horse when we returned to purchase the gift for our friend at Brookstone. I only remembered how offended we had been after we were in the car and heading home. I hope this woman we saw is able to salvage something of worth from this holiday season and can only say that we wish her well and that her troubles dissipate.

Why would the police walk someone down the entire length of the mall in cuffs in full public view? Is any public policy purpose served by such a display? It was really quite incredible and I'm still somewhat in shock at what I saw. I will try to respond to each person who responds but, given the lateness of the hour, some responses may not happen until tomorrow.

[leftstreet]

1. What do you mean by this? >

"I could just tell that this host who had to be working class was decidedly not getting why what we had seen was so offensive."

Are you thinking she didn't 'get' this because she was 'working,' not 'middle' class?

:shrug:

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Sorry, it's not clear to me either - LOL. But I was astounded that this

so-called 'host' seemed to be defending humiliating someone. Or, if not defending it, making excuses for it. We stopped by to convey our displeasure at what we had witnessed and this host, rather than say something like, "Sir, I will convey your displeasure to mall management" instead seemed to be saying, "There was nothing at all amiss in what you and your wife saw."

Does that make sense?

It struck both my wife and me that this 'host' was parroting an authoritarian position.

This is why I said I needed a 'reality check'. Maybe it's normal to see people paraded through the mall in handcuffs. I'm not much of a mall-goer.

On edit: what made it more astounding is that this 'host' took such a seemingly authoritarian line even though she acknowledged that she herself had been previously unemployed, i.e., was working class. I suppose I expected her to show a little empathy and understand why it wasn't cool to parade someone through the length of the mall.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Nah what you saw is a very old attitude

vis a vis the poor and internalized by many of the poor as well.

Who you saw in cufs was not a deserving poor.. yes actual term. And it is in the national DNA... you can thank The English Poor Laws for that and well John Calvin. It is this belief that if you do as you are told, you will get the help you need... if you don't, forget economic conditions, in this view they don't matter. it is your fault.

It is moralistic, it is bullshit, and it is one of the things that needs to change in this country.

[rustydog]

67. A concierge would not necessarily be privy to the details

surrounding the woman's detention. The poster does not know that the detained person had not fled or possibly stolen items from multiple stores.
Several years ago I assisted police and secuirty arrest six professional thieves at our local mall during the Christmas shopping season. They hit Nordstrom, Macy's, JCPennys, and other stores.
People steal, people steal for profit, plain and simple. We don't know this woman's story, only that she is well dressed and in handcuffs in police custody.

The poster does not know the details and is assuming a lot. The mall does not dictate police procedure. Certainly the Concierge does not dictate police procedure. It is good that the poster's heart goes out to the person in custody...but to decide with no facts at all that the police are purposely making this arrested person do a humiliating "perp walk" is just as irresponsible as those who assume the woman is a low-life thief deserving of the humiliation.

[bobbolink]

106. Of course. We have all bought into the "Us" and "Them" mentality, and doing that leaves us

always aligning ourselves with "THEM".

You can see it here on DU all the time.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

123. I agree that "this 'host' was parroting an authoritarian position."

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. There is actually a possible explanation

not one that might be popular with you.

It is where they found parking for the squad car.

I know that at this time of the year, even in Tijuana, during a medical emergency, yes red zone parking with lights and all that. at times we had to walk the length of a mall to get to the scene.

Granted American malls have far more access than we had at the mercados... but it might be as "innocent" as that.

Oh and most people, yes again experience, avoid looking at what people in uniform are doing... especially those with badges and guns.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. In my experience in LA, police tend to park wherever they damn well please and damn the

consequences. (I've seen patrol cars parked in very hazardous spots on occasion.)

I suppose it's possible.

The woman they were escorting was not putting up any resistance and they were not brutalizing her in any way. It was a very business-like walk. But it had to be very humiliating for the woman in cuffs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Oh absolutely why I said possible

Not whether that was the answer or not.

Not justifying it either. I even broke the lens of a paparazzi when he tried to take a photo of one of my ahem, better known patients. I protected my patients as best as I could. And it was an expensive lens too!

When he complained it was pointed to him he was interfering with Emergency Services... yes the actual charge.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. If it was shop-lifting, then she would have been nabbed at Macy's by

Macy's security first who would have called LAPD. Not sure why LAPD would not have simply parked outside Macy's rather than at the Nordstroms' end (a good eighth of a mile).

The whole thing was over so quickly and they were by us before our human instincts kicked in.

Also, these are strange days we are living through, as several of your other posts have pointed out, so it may be that I am reading too much into a routine hum-drum police procedure. But my wife and I were both absolutely appalled.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. You are correct that this should be the expected thing

as you do not want to do that...

There are valid reasons as a cop you do not want to expose this person to more people than necessary due to the nature of jury trials.

And quite frankly LAPD has a well deserved reputation... but it may be just the nature of the season. How full was the mall? I mean the parking lot?

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Westside Pavillion (at Pico and Westwood). Lot seemed full, but

we lucked into our spot after only about 5 minutes wait. I'm not the world's greatest shopper or mall-goer, so I don't have a good baseline upon which to make comparisons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. So it might have been a problem finding parking

or the mall may have an official parking spot for cops. One of my local malls has them.

[Duer 157099]

15. Ah, based simply on the location, I'd say it was the parking

I haven't been to that mall in a looooooooooooong time, probably a decade, but even back then, parking was horrible and even for a cop car, I'd bet they have trouble finding a spot. Not only that, but it'd be just as mortifying to be paraded down Pico Blvd in handcuffs too, so walking the mall was probably a logical choice.

Just based on the location.

Now, if you had said Fox Hills Mall (or whatever it's called these days, that would have been different).

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Can tell you're an old-timer - LOL. Fox Hills is now called

"Westfield Culver City Mall" (so named because Westfield is the owner of the mall property).

[Duer 157099]

17. Heheh, indeed! I remember when Fox Hills was BUILT! LOL

We were so excited when that mall opened, OMG, it was awesome!

I bet it's a little different now. LOL

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Or the cops were already at the mall for some other reason

and has already parked at the far end. Then they got a call saying "please pick up shoplifting suspect, you are the nearest unit" (please excuse the lingo picked up from watching TV shows, I have no idea if they really call themselves 'units').

A good eighth of a mile? So about 3 minutes walk, perhaps? If they had already parked, it wouldn't be worth moving the car.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Yes they call themselves units....

that is a piece of lingo that is actually real.

The ten code they use is also mostly out of So Cal.

No they do not go through the whole boring code, just the the usual familiar things... like 10-4

[petronius]

108. Or they figured that a leisurely stroll through the mall was better than

doing paperwork and perhaps getting another call before clocking out.

Yet another possibility is that there's a police sub-station somewhere in the mall and they were walking there - my hometown mall has one (along with a little branch of City Hall) and there are usually officers in attendance...

(Edit because in all my years I have never spelled "leisurely" correctly on the first attempt...)

[rustydog]

68. If ignorance is bliss....I apprehended several Macys Shoplifters

that their security missed.....you are making a major assumption and may be WAYYYYY off base.

[seabeyond]

41. that is part of what doesnt make sense that they would park so far from the store that called in

can you imagine anytime a cop is called and they park a good distance from the actual call to walk into the scene? doesnt make sense

not that i care one way or another about this issue. too many unknowns and not real high outrage on my meter

[coalition_unwilling]

45. That's what I think caught my wife's and my attention (and why I

said I needed a reality check in my OP). We just could not fathom what reason the LAPD would have to escort this person on foot throughout the mall itself. It 'did not make sense' to either of us either. It was over too quickly, before either of us had a chance to realize that, in talking about it, we were both bothered by it (and then posting about it on DU :)

It caused the tiniest of blips on my outrage meter which seems pretty much stuck in the red zone full time ever since January of 2001.

[seabeyond]

51. i hear ya. nt

[-..__...]

58. Reason?

I wonder how many potential shoplifters in the mall saw the woman being escorted out, had second thoughts, turned around and left?

Maybe the woman was known to them and they were tired of her act?

Maybe she gave them a difficult time in the store and/or security office?

"Hey... fuck you. You want to be an asshole about it...".

Quite honestly... I don't see why they would even need a reason (or have to justify their actions), to escort her out the way they did; sometimes things just work out that way.

[rustydog]

61. Or, the suspect was being returned to the store where a theft occurred

Which would necessitate walking her through the entire mall to reach the destination.

[EFerrari]

5. The LAPD are notoriously corrupt and ugly. nt

[Cid_B]

8. The whole thing could have been avoided...

if she hadn't been a thief....

[coalition_unwilling]

10. As for "innocent until proven guilty"? Oh well . .. I guess that's just

quaint and obsolete thinking these days. Even if her heart were pitch black, there was no need to humiliate her unless the purpose was to humiliate her -- no public policy purpose was served, as far as I can see.

[Obamanaut]

29. It is a 'presumption' of innocence in that at a trial the accuser must

prove guilt rather than the defendant proving innocence.

And, if a person commits an offense, that person is actually guilty even though the court system was not able to prove it. As soon as an offense occurs, the offender is guilty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. You are thinking Napolenic Code

In the british system you are not guilty until convicted.

The order is arrest, indictment, trial and then indictment, Until that point you are presumed innocent.

Now if you are arrested in a country with a Napoleonic Code, you are guilty until YOU prove your innocence to the courts. Why it was such a fucking big deal when Mexico changed that over the course of the summer, at least in the laws. THey are still treating suspects as if they were still guilty and doing things like parading prisoners before trial is actually a violation of human rights.

[Obamanaut]

73. No I am not. If you rob a store and go to trial, you might well be

acquitted, but you are in fact guilty of robbing that store.

The justice system will afford you the presumption of innocence during the proceedings, and you must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt otherwise you will go free. BUT regardless of the acquittal, if you robbed the store you are guilty and you know you are guilty but you simply got away with it.

Here's my earlier response: "It is a 'presumption' of innocence in that at a trial the accuser must prove guilt rather than the defendant proving innocence.

And, if a person commits an offense, that person is actually guilty even though the court system was not able to prove it. As soon as an offense occurs, the offender is guilty."

As you can see, presumption of innocence says the accuser must prove guilt. I said that in the original. If you commit a crime, you are guilty EVEN THOUGH the courts set you free because they could not prove your guilt. But you know, as you watch the 42" HDTV you took, that you are guilty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. No, you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

and if you rob the store and the facts of it are such that they will prove it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

It is up to the state to prove your guilt. Just because a cop slaps cuffs on you, don't make you guilty of shit.

People really need to learn how the system SHOULD work.

Perhaps you'd be happier in France where indeed you are GUILTY when you are arrested and it is up to you to prove otherwise.

[Obamanaut]

77. Go back read the post - it's edited to clarify what you cannot seem to

pick out of the words.

If you rob a store, regardless of what the courts say, you robbed the store, you are watching the HDTV you took, you know you are guilty, but the courts could not prove the case against you. You are guilty of theft/robbery and you know it. But you are free.

And it is NOT that you are 'innocent until proven guilty', you are merely 'presumed' to be, and that isn't even in the constitution, it is merely implied.

Added this on edit:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

<snip>First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however…”


That seems fairly straightforward. Got it now?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. And what part of YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS have NOTHING

to do with legal standards are you failing to comprehend?

So if the courts acquit you, what is penalty LEGALLY MIND YOU, exactly?

It has little to do whether you got away with it because the state blew it, or you were actually not guilty.

have a good day.

[Obamanaut]

82. There is no legal penalty. Some people will say that GWB is and/or

was guilty of stuff.

Hasn't been tried/convicted, but people will say he is guilty. Not legally, no penalty, but people will say it, won't you, er, they.

I betcha EVEN YOU have been guilty of infractions that you got away with, but you are still guilty of those infractions.

BTW, I always have a good day. Even now, the sky is blue, birds are singing, I just downloaded a bunch of stuff onto an MP3 to take with me to the gym. Life is good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. I guess we live in different realities

As to Bush and Chenney they should have faced the music. You are comparing actual war crimes with... a traffic violation?

Okie dokie.

Enjoy the Gym

[Obamanaut]

86. War crimes, traffic violations. No charge, no indictment, no trial, no guilt. It's

the 'presumed' not 'actual' innocence thing. Easy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Have we had any charges filed?

And we actually interfered with the efforts of an independent judiciary to file them.

Have a good life, welcome to my ignore list.

I really have little patience with these fucking games anymore. Go play them with somebody else, who actually gives a fuck. Buy Bye.

[Obamanaut]

88. There goes my day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. And what part of YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS have NOTHING

to do with legal standards are you failing to comprehend?

So if the courts acquit you, what is penalty LEGALLY MIND YOU, exactly?

It has little to do whether you got away with it because the state blew it, or you were actually not guilty.

have a good day.

[Obamanaut]

83. refer to post #82 nt

[TorchTheWitch]

14. you're really projecting

First, you don't even know what the woman was arrested for. Maybe she was arrested for shoplifting and maybe she was arrested for something far more heinous... like maybe she was beating the shit out of her kid in Macy's, or maybe she punched out another shopper because she wanted that last pair on jeans on the shelf, or maybe she was pickpocketing the wallets of other shoppers, etc.

Second, if it was shoplifting she was arrested for you're assuming that she shoplifted for some noble reason. Clue: There is no noble reason for shoplifting. People who shoplift do it because they just don't want to pay for something and want to have it for free. It's an act of despicable GREED. It's also a fact that people who do shoplift do it far more during busy times than any other. At slow times what shoppers are doing is far more noticeable. So, assuming she must have been somehow "really desperate" because of shoplifting during a busy holiday time is ass backwards. Why do you think more security is necessary during busy shopping times than any other? Uh... because people shoplift a hell of a lot more during busy times than any other!

Third, you're all worried about a greedy criminal being humiliated by being walked through the mall? As far as I'm concerned, a greedy criminal could use a little humiliation as a lesson that it's a bad idea to be a greedy criminal. It also makes a good deterrent for anyone seeing it that may have been doing or contemplating doing their own greedy criminal deeds. Anyone thinking on lifting that DVD they don't want to pay for would think twice seeing someone being frogmarched in handcuffs out of the mall.

Fourth, who says they were taking her out of the mall in the first place? Usually shoplifters don't go straight from the scene of the crime to the police station but are taken to the mall's security area where they may be frisked to find out if anything else was stolen, and especially to review the surveillance video to see if there's a reason to take them to the police station at all.

Fifth, why is it that you automatically assume that she was taken through the length of the mall for no other reason than to humiliate her? Did it not occur to you that the other end of the mall was were the police car was located and they can't have it drive around by remote control to the other end of the mall?

You saw this woman who got arrested and taken through the mall by police officers and just made up a story that suited your odd need to be outraged when you have no idea why she was arrested in the first place or why she was being taken in the direction she was. No wonder the worker at the courtesy counter probably thought you were nuts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Absolutely. After all, as soon as the cuffs go on, you are guilty.

Just as the OP doesn't know that she was shoplifting out of desperation to not disappoint her kids at Christmas time, YOU don't know that she was a heinouos, greedy thief or worse - you are ALSO just making shit up.

What we DO know is that in our justice system a person is innocent until proven guilty, and public humiliation is not a part of the criminal code. The perp walk is supposed to come AFTER trial, as the criminal is being led away to serve his sentence, not before charges have even been filed.

This authoritarian infringement on the person's rights is unAmerican.

[TorchTheWitch]

21. cool, now you're projecting

automatically assuming that the police had no reason to arrest her, handcuff her, take her out of the mall and like the OP assuming the only reason to take her through the mall was for public humiliation.

Because there's just no crime whatsoever in this country and any time you see a cop with someone in handcuffs being taken out of the mall it just has to be because they have nothing better to do than humiliate some random shopper. Yeah, that's it. :eyes:

[oldhippie]

50. Funny how we all seem to take great glee when a bankster or politician ....

... from the other side gets the "perp walk." No worries about presumption of innocence or humiliation then.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Except for a few choice personages high in Repuke ranks, I don't

take 'glee' in seeing anyone humiliated. I must confess, though, seeing Bush, Cheney or Rove being perp-walked through the Westside Pavillion in cuffs and, preferably, orange jump suits would make my Christmas this year in a way that no presents ever could :)

[rustydog]

71. Devil's advocate here...Aren't THEY innocent until proven guilty

in a court of law?

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Absolutely and unequivocally. I was attempting to be flippant to

a previous poster asking about 'glee' watching bankers and politicians do a perp walk. However, EVERYONE (no exceptions whatsoever) is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Without the presumption of innocence, we are no better than our medieval forebears.

[rustydog]

63. In COURT there is a presumption of innocence. The Gov't MUST

Bear the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Police, based on whether the officers themselves witnessed the crime or took statements of witnesses, are obligated to take the person in custody and let the justice system wrangle over guilt or innocence.

Walking the length of the mall may very well be the perpetrator fled the scene and was being returned to the scene of the crime...necessitating your "perp walk"

[markpkessinger]

19. You don't know that she's a "greedy criminal"

The fact is that the woman cannot be judged to be a criminal by you or anyone else until she has been convicted by a court of law. As an accused person, she is entitled to every presumption of innocence, especially by the police. We do not, in a civilized society, use the process of arresting someone as an occasion to inflict punishment. Punishment is solely the province of a court to determine following a finding of guilt. The original poster here did not assume she had shoplifted for a noble reason -- he relayed a conversation between himself and his wife in which they were contemplating what would possess someone to try to shoplift at a time of year when it is well known that security will be tighter; his wife offered that she might be able to envision it if the woman had kids at home. But neither the poster nor, by his account, his wife suggested that they knew anything at all about the woman's actual motives. You, on the other hand, who know even less about the situation that occurred, have adjudged the woman a "greedy criminal."

I will jump to the defense of the host at the courtesy counter, though. The fact is, mall employees don't have any control over how the LAPD might choose to handle an arrest, whether on mall property or not. There was a situation here in New York a year or two ago, where a police officer stationed in a public elementary school was treating a student who had engaged in a relatively minor offense (writing on the surface of her desk) in a way that was needlessly harsh. The principal of the school began to protest the treatment of the student, and was promptly threatened with arrest himself for interfering with police work.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Thank you for this. You have expressed far more eloquently than I did or could

just what it was that bothered my wife and me. We could not for the life of us figure out why it was necessary to walk this woman the entire length of the mall in full public view.

As for the 'host' at the courtesy counter, I would imagine that she was not making a tremendous amount of money at the job. What struck my wife and me was how quick she was to excuse what we had seen and were complaining about. I totally understand that the mall has no direct control over the actins of the LAPD. One of the semi-harsh responders on this thread said the host looked at us "like we were nuts." I would not go quite that far, but I did get the distinct impression that those hosts were not used to people questioning that type of behavior. I do not doubt the host and one of her co-workers did express their opinions about my wife and my general psychological state after we had left the courtesy counter and were out of earshot :)

My wife and I have had numerous positive encounters with officers of the LAPD in years past (for noise complaints about one of our neighbors in our apartment building). My personal experience with LAPD is that they conduct themselves very professionally, so I intended this thread more as a "why did it have to happen this way?" type of question than a "bash the police" thread. Some of the responses have been quite telling, though, I must say. Thanks again for your defense of my wife and me.

[MikeW]

46. Why would you bother an employee at the courtesy desk with

an issue you know full well is beyond their control.

Sounds like your a busy body.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. That's a damned good question. Still trying to answer it for myself.

I don't think I'm a busy body. At least I hope not. If I am, I'm a very anti-materialistic and misanthropic one. A social butterfly I am most decidedly not.

I think my wife and I wanted to let someone at the mall know what we had seen and that we thought it was worthy of asking about, so that our concern might be relayed to the mall's owners or management. At the time we went to the counter, the whole issue of whether the mall controlled the LAPD (or vice versa) had not crossed our minds.

[Irishonly]

56. There's a lot of unknowns

I think if the woman was caught shoplifting she would have to have taken more than $50.00 for the police to be called. Since we don't know what the woman did we really don't know why the police were called.

That being said I believe police are different depending on your residence. I live in the IE and police are as different as night and day depending on which city you are in. Some departments are quite authoritative or at least it would appear so from my observation.

I have seem the police in my city being jerks and then see them act with such kindness it makes you think you are in a different city. Last summer a gentleman ran over a curb and take out our neighbor's peach tree with his truck. At first look he appeared drunk and the neighbors were not about to let him leave. I also happen to be diabetic and wondered if his blood sugar had bottomed out because of the way he was acting. We mentioned this to the police and they tested him. I don't know why the man wasn't in a diabetic coma. By the time the ambulance got here his blood sugar was going up. They helped save a man's life and made sure a social worker would be at the hospital. The man was homeless and his "home" was totaled.

Sorry for the ramble but I am a child of the 60's and had my fair share of run ins while protesting Nam. I wish the woman had been treated with more dignity but there is no way to know why she was being arrested.

[rustydog]

65. In Washington State you can be charged for stealing a 1.00 item

There are also civil provisions where the thief must pay a 300.00 civil penalty to the shopkeeper plus the cost of the item.

So, if you take a 1.00 pack of gum, you can end up paying 301.00 for your poor choice of judgment.

[Irishonly]

101. Wow

Expensive lesson. I am one of those people who will practice civil disobedience but would never take anything or muder.... Am almost 59 years old and have never even had a speeding ticket. LOL

[Obamanaut]

30. Now, this is an outstanding response! +1 nt

[WolverineDG]

104. Of all the folks I've represented for shop-lifting, only 1 was completely innocent

and of the rest, only 1 did it for something other than the thrill of taking something that didn't belong to them. All the rest stole incredibly STUPID stuff (make-up in one case & beer in another---all for kicks & grins) & only wanted me to work out the best deal possible.

dg

[msanthrope]

112. You had an innocent one? Shite---never had an innocent shoplifter....n/t

[WolverineDG]

113. yup, happens

esp. with the law of parties.

dg

[markpkessinger]

115. No one has suggested the woman is innocent

No one, including the author, has actually asserted that the woman is innocent. What we are suggesting is that irrespective of what she did or did not do, she is entitled to a presumption of innocence until she is found guilty by a court of law. And that holds regardless of how many guilty or innocent shoplifters you have represented.

[WolverineDG]

116. No, really?

Seems to me that folks on DU conveniently forget the presumption of innocence whenever the accused is from a disfavored group. I'm frequently lambasted from bringing that pesky presumption up from time to time.

I never said anything about this particular person, seeing as how the OP was making a lot of presumptions about the woman, the cops, & some mall employee who had no control over what was going on in the first place, but was blamed for it anyway, based on his own particular biases. I was just talking about my experiences with shoplifting cases.

And, ffs, we don't even know what she was busted for.

dg

[EFerrari]

117. Humiliating prisoners is a human rights violation and illegal. nt

[StarsInHerHair]

and the dumb cops seem oblivious the GOP is out to pilfer their pensions

their position has been filled by private security, they don't fully realize this, but as cuts to their Depts. continue........cops are "welfare queens", same with firefighters and teachers.

[StarsInHerHair]

20. and the dumb cops seem oblivious the GOP is out to pilfer their pensions

their position has been filled by private security, they don't fully realize this, but as cuts to their Depts. continue........cops are "welfare queens", same with firefighters and teachers.

[Buns_of_Fire]

22. Object lesson, reference "Scared Straight".

"Behave yourself or this will happen to you."

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Bad "bouncy story."

Did they actually walk her "down the entire length of the mall in cuffs in full public view?"

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Why would you use that descriptor?

I've never seen anyone use the phrase "bouncy story" here on DU. I have however seen it on several of those other sites that may not be mentioned here.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. I have seen used here multiple times. It is where I learned the term.

Usually is accompanied by this smilie: :bounce: It is more common in the DU Lounge. Nice try though.

[Ikonoklast]

91. I've never seen that term in the Lounge.

Other sites not friendly to Democrats, yes, they use that term.


Links to 'bouncy' Lounge posts, please.

Thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. Look for yourself.

This passive agressive bullshit is annoying.

[Ikonoklast]

93. That's what I thought.

Glad to know it.


You have a nice bouncy evening.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Typical.

It is an easy search, just as easy as your passive aggressive remarks I must be a freeper.

[Norrin Radd]

24. Shoplifters of the world...

unite and take over...

[blueamy66]

25. Because most cops are assholes.

That is all.

[hedgehog]

26. I have two thoughts on this one: more than likely, the cops were headed to their car

and/or somewhere at that end of the mall. Second, even if it was a perp walk, I have no objections. Innocent until proven guilty means it's up to the state to prove you did it, not up to you to prove you didn't. However, the cops are not supposed to arrest people unless there is good evidence they are guilty of a crime. That's why we have lawsuits regarding false arrest.

While some may see shoplifting as a reasonable response to economic injustice, Many (most?) people down on their luck are honest to a fault. My guess is the average shoplifter can actually afford what s/he steals, but somehow feels entitled to taking the object without paying.

I've long thought that for some crimes, including DUI/DWI, the best punishment isn't prison time but to be exhibited in a secure public place. A quiet day in court with a fine isn't much of a deterrent for some people, public humiliation would be. In this case, I suspect a lot of people had second thoughts about lifting any merchandise.

[Codeine]

27. As a retailer who runs a store barely holding on by the skin of its teeth

I say without hesitation that shoplifters fucking suck ass. The people that steal are usually not the poorest and the homeless, but rather assholes who HAVE the money on them and simply do not want to pay. Poor people usually have enough dignity not to rip others off.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. I hope you are able to make it and prosper (and that your shoplifting

karma stays in your favor). What struck my wife and I was how 'ordinary' this woman appeared -- we imagined that she herself might be holding on by the skin of her teeth as well which made the 'perp walk' seem all the more gratuitous and unnecessarily cruel.

[blondeatlast]

72. I spent many, many, years in retail from clerk to in-store security to window dresser.

Pros look as ordinary as possible. You won't see glam, or punk, or designer clothes. No dyes hair, nothing at all that would call attnetion. Instead you see--nothing. Regardless whether they are pros at shoplifting or fraud, you couldn't pick them out by appearance.

That's how they operate. Maybe this woman was stealing for the most harmless of reasons or maybe she was a pro or maybe she caused a disruption or maybe she did nothing wrong--I don't know, but "ordinary" is part of the miodus operandi for professional thieves.

Consider that for just a moment.

[coalition_unwilling]

94. I will defer to your extensive experience in brick and mortar retail which far dwarfs mine. Even if

this person was a 'pro,' however, my original question remains as to the social utility of walking her through the mall in cuffs. It seemed a bit gratuitous and needlessly humiliating. Some other responders have suggested that was the point or should be the point, i.e., to deter other actual and potential thieves.

[blondeatlast]

97. my guess is that that was the intent. this is prime season for

theft of all kinds.

[rustydog]

66. Ding, ding, ding! You said it my friend, dead on.

Easily, 80% of the shoplifters I've dealt with HAD THE MONEY ON THEM but chose to steal.
One, well dressed woman, of upper class status in our town actually blamed her toddler for placing a meticulously folded 150.00 sweater in her shopping bag....She had the money, she chose to steal.

[Obamanaut]

28. Any humiliation and degradation the person experienced was due

to some violation (you imagined shoplifting), and walking to the car or other transport in handcuffs was the person's choice when making the decision to do whatever the offense was.

Using a word in the text and assuming the reader doesn't know what it is, or doesn't know how to look it up, is "...tacky..." as well - "...very 'declasse' (classless)...."

[aikoaiko]

32. Who knows -- maybe the cuffed person objected to be walked outside in the cold.

And the police were obliging her request to stay inside.

:shrug:

[ti66er8pooh]

33. Who knows?

Who knows really? I tend to lean towards a previous poster who implied that there are multiple conclusions that are all plausible. I just don't understand why this action would automatically offend the OP.

Like a previous poster had stated, what if the crime was more heinous than just merely stealing a jacket or DVD? Would it then be ok? I'm pretty sure the police were not parading the perp around just for fucks sake. I would guess that the police were merely doing there job and walking to a secure area of the mall, or possibly to thier patrol cars. Or, maybe this poor shoplifter stole from numerous stores throughout the mall and the police were escorting her to another store for further investigation.

It sounds as if the OP would have protested to just about any method of travel if the police were involved. Maybe they should have gotten three motorized scooters with cool baskets in the front and and made the poor woman promise not to try to outrun them. Perhaps if the police would have not handcuffed the woman and had skipped merrily through the mall this would have been more pleasing. I kidddd, I kiddddd.

The unfortunate truth is that crime and police work isn't pretty at times. Sometimes the police have to do their jobs, which includes making sure that people who have broken the law do not get away or attempt to get away. It is clear that the OP's assumptions about the woman vs. the police are biased, probably based on some bad run ins or interactions with the police. Try not to clump all people into one category...including police officers.

IMHO

[coalition_unwilling]

98. While I appreciate what you say, I must first tell you that every interaction

my wife and I have had on a personal level with the LAPD has been unfailingly positive so far (even when I have been pulled over for traffic violations). I once watched a female LAPD officer stand still as a stone as a drunken hooligan threw a beer can at her; she did not move a muscle the entire time (although said drunk was later arrested for disturbing the peace) and I got a quick object lesson in what professional policing was all about.

My wife reminded me this morning that one of the two LAPD officers we saw yesterday was carrying a small bag presumably taken from the woman. This is what led my wife to think that the woman had been detained for shoplifting.

We were not opposed to the police travelling with the detainee; we were opposed (I guess you could say) to them parading her through the mall in handcuffs and exposing her to the view of all passers-by. Maybe it was a necessary part of routine police procedure; some responders have suggested that the police had to walk her to where their patrol car was parked or they had to walk her to the mall's security area.

[Vinca]

34. I think you need more facts before you criticize the cops on this one.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. I was falsely accused of shoplifting about 30 years ago

I wasn't handcuffed but I was escorted to the security office in the back of the store and that was quite humiliating. Since I had done absolutely nothing wrong, it was also rather infuriating. And the memory of that incident leads me to thank you very much for your thoughtful post.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. You are welcome. I'm not sure why I posted it here, except that DU

is probably my favorite place on the internet and I felt that I could air it out here without getting bashed about the head too much, other than rhetorically.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. What I did was stupid but not criminal. I didn't appreciate being treated like a criminal.

I had been to the grocery store and had 2 or 3 bags of groceries plus my two year old. There was a big chain discount store right next door to the grocery store. Didn't even have to go outside to enter the store.

It was late in the evening. I was tired.

So I wheeled my cart into the store, did my shopping. Don't even remember what I bought. Only a few things. Just wanted to get home and put my feet up. On my way out the door to the parking lot, I was stopped by store security and escorted back into the store to the security office. They accused me of stashing something in my grocery bags so they took everything out of them. Found nothing. Went through my purse. Again nothing.

Local cops came and told the security guys to let me go since I had nothing. So the security guys said okay but I was banned from their store for life. I laughed. Why the hell would I EVER want to go back to this store after the way I was treated?

Lesson learned. I should have taken my groceries to the car before I went into the store.

[Stevenmarc]

39. It seems that some malls have gone back to a more nostalgic simpler time

where shame actually was a motivating factor on a persons behavior. A local mall in the NYC area has just started their new program to flash pictures of shoplifters on their advertising kiosks throughout the mall during the holiday season.

I wrote to them, in the spirit of nostalgia, to let them know that their shame drive had a quaint 1950's feel to it and pointed out that in today's society, shame, quite frankly was out the window, as illustrated by the fact that in the 50's a pregnant teenage girl had a good shot of being shipped off to a home for wayward girls now it gets them a spot on Dancing With The Stars. I let them them know that today's society is much more apt to be motivated by greed and fear and that I look forward to seeing what they could come up with next season that embraced that more modern approach.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. Wow, you have qutie a gift for satire (I think). Please note that my wife

and I think that it was the LAPD escorting the woman through the mall and not any mall personnel themselves.

Agree with you that 'shame' is pretty much a goner, else we would not have a Prez who proudly and forthrightly embraced torture as a legitimate public policy option. Not sure what the malls can do to accentuate the greed and fear concepts -- maybe market even bigger SUVs by advertising hordes of the unemployed banging on the gates of security gated compounds?

[Stevenmarc]

52. I don't have any doubt

that mall management and the local LAPD precinct that serves it had a discussion and agreed on the perp walk concept for dealing with shoplifters, cops don't tend to walk long distances just for the hell of it unless it came down from the top.

[seabeyond]

42. shruggin... maybe they found other stuff on her from another store

no one really knows what was happening or why

[MikeW]

47. possible explination

For example at our major mall we have a city police office right on one of the mall floors.

Unfort. it was necessary as our local mall had many problems with violence and gangs recently.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. That could well be - several other posters have posited the possibiity

that there was a mall 'security area' where the woman was being escorted. Your explanation would make sense/ I just question why the woman had to be walked on foot in full public view exposed to the stares of total strangers.

[X_Digger]

49. Should the police carry a mobile tent? A burkha, perhaps?

Should they instruct everyone going by to avert their gaze?

If the cops had made 2 tours of the mall, beating a drum and loudly shouting the woman's suspected crime and name- that would be humiliation.

Escorting the woman to the mall's security office? Quietly, and without much fuss? Not so much.

[coalition_unwilling]

54. Hmm, good points you raise. Maybe the real moral of the story here

is that my wife and I were not so caught up in our own private mission and business that we had the opportunity to observe. (I blog about our adventures walking and so use the walks to gather material anyway.)

If they were indeed escorting her to the mall's security office, that would have to occur on foot. So your point is well taken.

I do think i would feel humiliated being walked in handcuffs in public (unless it were for civil disobedience), even if those escorting me were not banging a drum or shouting my name. So maybe the humiliation factor exists on a spectrum.

[DavidDvorkin]

57. Minor quibble: mid to late 30s is not middleaged.

[-..__...]

59. It could be worse. At least it's not as "humiliating"...

as being paraded in front of the news cameras stationed in the court room.

And never mind the "humiliation" of being marched out through the mall; there's the "humiliation of getting her name published
in the newspaper.

Hey... she fucked up... she got caught...
:nopity:

[coalition_unwilling]

60. I agree that there are degrees of humiliation and that what she experienced

was not the worst. And it may indeed be the case, as several posters have speculated, that the LAPD had to walk her on foot to their assigned parking spot or to a separate mall security area.

I do, however, feel compelled to note that this woman had not yet been convicted of anything, as far as I know. So when you write that 'Hey . . . she fucked up . . . she got caught . . . " I think it would be safer to say that authorities had probably cause to believe she had fucked up, hence the arrest.

[rustydog]

69. Really? you do not know the arrestee's history.

The handcuffs are to protect police, bystanders and the arrestee. A woman can resist arrest as mightily as a man.

The police were following procedure, it does not require your permission, it does not require your belief in their "rightness" of her suspected guilt or innocence, they will follow procedure.

The police must make a determination a law had been violated. They do have the ability to gather information and come to a conclusion there is enough evidence to arrest the person in question, cite the person or release her. What you observed was their decision they had enough information to take her into custody.

You do not know that this was a theft issue, assault issue, a murder suspect found in the mall...a disruptive person who has outstanding warrants...you saw a person in handcuffs and took an Olympic leap in assuming.

[coalition_unwilling]

81. I can agree with everything you wrote but still question whether you

understood my original point. My point was not that shoplifting is OK or that the police do not have the job of arresting people when they believe probable cause exists that someone has violated the law. My point instead was that parading her through the mall, absent some compelling reason, seemed a bit gratuitous and cruel.

You are absolutely correct that I do not know the specific cause of her detention. My wife made what I thought was a fairly compelling argument that it would have been for shoplifting. But it might have been for murder. Even so, I still question the wisdom and the necessity to walk someone through the mall in cuffs.

Some who have responded have speculated that police were walking her to their squad car because there was no parking nearby or that police were walking her to some mall security area. If so, that answers my original question, I think.

[rustydog]

105. Again.... an Olympic medal-winning ASSUMPTION on your part

You are assuming the police are perp-walking this woman to embarrass her. Not even entertaining the possibility they are walking her back to where witnesses/victims are located or where the security office is, or to pick up the evidence, IF the arrest was for theft (your first assumption based on seeing a woman handcuffed in a mall).

Having compassion for people is a great quality. Too often people are quick to judge and do not know the circumstances that compel a person to steal, rob, whatever. We have become too insensitive as a society and your compassion is welcome.

On the other hand, don't let your compassion blind you to to the point that with no evidence to back up your statements, you think the police were purposely degrading the woman based SOLELY on your seeing them walk her through the mall in handcuffs.

[-..__...]

111. Seems like a typical day at the mall.

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/rancho-park/crime

Day doesn't go by that there isn't a theft or car break-in (Dec 3rd there was a robbery/assault there).

[coalition_unwilling]

121. Actually, I do not believe that I was assuming the police were walking this woman in order to

embarrass her. I was more wondering what public policy purpose or police procedure was in play that would allow for someone to be walked through a public place in handcuffs. Some have suggested that the LAPD was walking her to their patrol car which, because of lack of parking, was parked at the other end of the mall. Others have suggested the LAPD was walking her to a mall security area, prior to taking any further action. I find each of these possible explanations plausible and certainly as plausible as any willful intent on the part of the LAPD to humiliate this particular individual.

I'm not one who knee-jerk bashes police automatically, even though Los Angeles' checkered history (going back to the 1950s) might justifiably lead some in that direction. I understand the police have a very difficult job to do serving, as it were, as the power elite's enforcers but also having to step in to address many of society's gross failings, much like today's teachers do.

This thread has really opened up a discussion, for which I am grateful. If my post got people to think a little bit, all the better. The responses to it have definitely made me think, for which I am again grateful.

[-..__...]

110. It's the Internet/DU (or any other web forum),...

the court of public opinion is allowable. :)

(How many times have Bush/Cheney been convicted/sentenced here without so much as even being charged with a crime?)

[leeroysphitz]

74. tl;dr

[Liberal_in_LA]

76. LAPD. nuff said.

[Freetradesucks]

78. I'm sure it was the quickest way to get

to where they needed to go.

Why should they take an extended walk to save the THIEF embarrassment?

And why are you making so many assumptions? She needed to steal to give her kids a Christmas present? Please.

I'm sure you would feel the same if she came to your house and helped herself to your property. (insert sarcasm smiley here)

[Wednesdays]

85. Public humiliation? Are you kidding? It's an American Pasttime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-23-jail_N.htm
http://www.cdispatch.com/crime/
http://www.myfoxboston.com/subindex/news/crime_files/mug_shots
http://www.theslammer.com/
http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-localroguesgallery,0,4655680.photogallery

[apocalypsehow]

89. That's an interesting story. n/t.

[Morning Dew]

96. "dough-eyed kid". Heh!

Well it is Christmas time and "dough" may well be the right sentiment - otherwise, doe-eyed.

:)

[coalition_unwilling]

99. Touche! All I can say in my defense is that I posted the original very late

last night. (The pun was most definitely not intended :)

[RandomKoolzip]

100. "Dough-eyed?!" God, that's a horrible image.

I'm imagining someone's ocular cavities filled with yeast. Ugh!

The word is "doe-eyed." "Doe," like a female deer.

[Spirit Ariel]

102. Where's your empathy and imagination???

I spent enough years struggling as a single mother to also be able to envision a child at home looking at this woman who was needlessly humiliated with expectant eyes. Many years when I could barely make ends meet and I too felt a temendous amount of consumer pressure during the holiday season. I felt year after year that what I was able to produce by Christmas morning had the potential to make or break the holiday for my daughter. Why is it that this time of year the potential for shoplifting is higher? You think that might have something to do with it? I never did shoplift and now my daughter is grown and I am in a somewhat better position financially but I understand what this man and his wife are positing and have personally seen the Southern California cops behave less than exemplary in particular when the 'fairer' sex was involved. I've been following this thread since the beginning and one or two of you have admonished coalition for inventing his own "glue" but I would like to point out he never said she was well dressed, only ordinarily dressed and many of you have been using your own glue, rather negative, nasty glue. This sort of leads me to wonder if some of you are on the right sight?? I thought this was a left wing sight? Doesn't that necessarily mean that we are supposed to be for the right of the 'little guy' not the powers that be.

[coalition_unwilling]

103. Thank you for this. Again, I want to stress that it was the fact that

the LAPD paraded this woman through the mall that had my wife and me concerned. Some people on this thread have suggested that her ordinary appearance may have been to disguise her status as a professional thief. To that, I simply cannot say. but I can say that California currently has a 12.4% unemployment rate, so there's a 1 in 8 chance this woman actually was unemployed, going by the raw statistics.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[rustydog]

107. Again, you are assuming... She may have been a wanted felon

she may have been a child abductor, she could have assaulted someone at the mall. she could have committed a hit and run on the street, fled into the mall and was apprehended....
You, me and everyone else on DU do not know the circumstances of the arrest or WHY the officers "paraded" their prisoner through the mall. Your assumption is they did it to embarrass her and for no other reason...

You will get into great shape if you continue jumping to conclusions like that! Heck, I'd buy the work out video!

[DainBramaged]

109. So because we should ALL assume like you, there should be no empathy for each other?

Priceless.

[undeterred]

114. The police love to do take downs and they love to humiliate people

and the don't even need a good excuse. Its one of the perks of the job.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. I maintain that liking this sort of stuff is a personality disorder.

An exceedingly destructive one, at that.

[keroro gunsou]

118. why

simple: because they can.

the mall cops at the mall i used to work at did that sort of shit all the time, especially to the teen-agers they busted. mostly cause they knew that the spoiled brats' parents wouldn't do shit on their own to discipline their widdle snoogums.

is it tasteless? yeah. but if they are doing it without favor to one type of person/crime over another, i don't have that much of problem with it. hey it's better than them beating the shit out of her... they are LAPD after all.

[lynne]

120. Lot's of stuff we don't know that could impact what went on -

- Where was the police cruiser? Had she been spotted in one store - with the police parking near that store when answering the call - and she managed to go across the mall to another store before the police got there? Was she eluding them, trying to sneak out of the mall?

The police weren't taking the scenic route with the purpose of humiliating her. They go the quickest route from point A to point B. While it may have been upsetting for some to watch - obviously you and your wife - getting her to the cruiser quickly and safely was their first priority.

Personally, it would appear to me that you're looking for something to be angry about. Be angry about her shoplifting as each of us end up paying for what she took home for free.

[coalition_unwilling]

122. I don't think I'm "looking for something to be angry about." There's plenty to enrage

me that is staring me right in the face, like unaccountability for torture and illegal wars or, closer to home, a 12.4% California unemployment rate (using U2 -- with U6, that rate is significantly higher, although I have not seen the stats). With realities like that, who needs to go looking for something to be angry about?

Question for you though (and this is not to justify shoplifting by any means): are businesses allowed to write off losses from shoplifting against their business income for purposes of calculating their taxes? I am not a tax specialist and do not have much experience in brick and mortar retailing. If businesses are allowed to write off losses from shoplifting dollar for dollar as a cost of doing busienss, then why would anyone pay a higher price because of shoplifting?

[conspirator]

124. Handcuffs are the "Book" procedure of any arrest and should be used

no matter how harmless the subject may appear.

[redirish28]

125. If my wife and I had been there She would have return EVERY item she bought from the stores in the

mall letting each store and every shopper there know why she was taking this action and she would have made sure they never got her business again. Than she would have filed a complaint with the LAPD for their action.

[crazyjoe]

126. maybe she'll think twice before stealing again

I find thief's to be disgusting, and they should be humiliated. Taking what isn't yours is against the law, not to mention it's something you learn before you get to kindergarten.
Who do you think ends up paying for all the stuff that gets stolen?