Take this in logical progression Greg. The first report, found at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates2.html, accounts for an elderly woman taking note of a "verbal dispute" between the two t-shirt wearers and an unknown number ("a group") of what were apparently guestimated to be war proponents. The woman was concerned of what might ensue were the "verbal dispute" to get out of hand.
Take note that in the"house detective's" own words that she contacted mall security and "informed them of the two individuals wearing the anti-war t-shirts." She didn't relay to mall security (or at least didn't convey in her report) any information about any "verbal dispute" between multiple parties. That in itself would set mall security into a completely different mind set - multiple parties, possible aggression, public injury. That would be a high security alert. (So from the get go, a house detective obviously is not familiar with the proper filing of a report and or the need to relay pertinent data to the enforcement office that she is enlisting. Big blunder or an after the fact "getting stories straight?") But no. She apparently only relayed that there were two pro-peace t-shirt wearing individuals in the mall's midst. (Now that's a Code Orange threat if anyone has ever heard one.) In the second report, found at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates3.html, the security guard states that the two wearers of the offensive t-shirts "that they were stopping customers to express why they are wearing the shirts." Stopping for a moment, one must ask how often a person is seen in public jumping into the path of oncoming pedestrians or tugging on their elbows saying 'Hey! Look at me! I'm wearing this t-shirt...and let me tell you why!' But assume for a moment that these two individuals did exactly that and that such behavior was the cause for the confrontation "in front of Macy's" which lead to the alerting of mall security. As this type of activity was apprently not part of what the "house detective" reported to mall security, there are only three ways that such behavior could come to the attention of the security guard: 1) personal report from yet another customer, 2) personal observation on the part of the security guard or 3) fabrication of a behavior in order to lend credence to the recourse that the guard chose. Out of deference to the security guard, presume for a moment the second possibility. If this were the case, that patrons were being accosted by these two individuals, then there existed an obligation to throw the two out on their ears with assurance of trespass charges being assessed should they refuse or return. But no. The security guard wrongly fixated on the t-shirts, not the alleged behavior, demanding the removal of the t-shirts rather than a cessation of accosting patrons. By failing to address the alleged behavior - supposedly accosting patrons - and focusing on the t-shirts, whether he personally deemed them provocative or not, diverted the issue from one of inappropriate behavior to one of "DWB" - "Driving While Black." That in itself is a stupid and extremely unprofessional blunder. In fact, it is so extremely stupid that it gives great cause as to exactly how accurate the security guard's representations of patrons being accosted is, enough so as to warrant an accurate determination of exactly when and where this alleged behavior occurred. Were I a betting man, I'd make book that yes, there probably was some verbal exchange in front of Macy's. But I'd also make book that it was some form of slurred remark in passing that gave cause to the two individuals to stop and issue their position on the matter in verbal form, not the "Hey! Look at me! I'm wearing this t-shirt and let me tell you why" form that was alleged. Frankly, if there was a shard of truth in the security guard's report, other than the fact that the two were wearing t-shirts, no mall manager in his right or left mind would have backed off the trespass charge. The security guard either grossly "confused" the real issue or fabricated it. Homey ain't buyin' this one hook, line and sinker as the guard would care to have others do. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] protest > While they may have had something that offended other shoppers on their > shirts, it seem that security also recieved reports of them stoping other > shoppers, which is a valid reasion to ask them to leave. > > Greg H. > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
