Police: Arrest in NJ Walmart racial comment case

[deminks]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. - An arrest has been made in the case of a racial comment being made over the public-address system at a Walmart store in southern New Jersey, police said.

The Washington Township Police Department said on its Web site early Saturday that an arrest has been made in a "bias incident" at the retail store. The posting said police and Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office will announce the arrest at a midday news conference.

Police and prosecutor's office spokesman Bernie Weisenfeld declined to comment Saturday.

A male voice came over the Walmart public-address system Sunday evening and calmly announced: "Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now."

Although a manager quickly apologized for the remark over the intercom, many customers expressed their anger to store management.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35959810/ns/us_news/

[leftygolfer]

1. One year in jail

That will teach this idiot to spread his hate in a public place.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

11. Please cite the New Jersey statute

that he violated, and the penalty prescribed by law for that violation. If all you can say is "well, what he did OUGHT to be a crime, so let's throw him in jail anyway, and forget the trial" then your point of view is nothing but jack-booted totalitarianism and has nothing to do with the rule of law.

[mbperrin]

35. Looks like NJSA 2C:33-4

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=185801&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advquery=%222C:33-4%22&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={190B}&softpage=Doc_Frame_Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=25&y=8&zz=


2C:33-4. Harassment.

Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:

a.Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

b.Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

c.Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.

A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.

d.(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.443).

e.A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, in committing an offense under this section, he was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.

L.1978, c.95; amended 1983, c.334; 1990, c.87, s.2; 1995, c.211, s.2; 1998, c.17, s.4; 2001, c.443, s.3.

[customerserviceguy]

50. The only thing I see in there

is the word "annoyance", and if it was not directed towards an identifiable person, it might not hold up.

Maybe the arrest itself will have some sobering influence on this kid, once he learns that racial slurs are not as funny as his friends/family think they are.

I live fairly close to this area, I pass through that township on my way to and from work everyday, and I'm surprised at the amount of racial slurs I hear in this area. I just moved here about three years ago from the Pacific Northwest, and after 37 relatively racially calm years, I was surprised to see the tensions between the various groups of people around here.

No doubt this kid learned this from the bigots around him.

[mbperrin]

55. Looks like section a is what they're going after to me.

a.Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;


Anonymous communication? Yes. In a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm? Yes, demonstrated by the patrons in the store at the time.


Looks prima facie to me, at least, but I'm no lawyer. I've just spend a bunch on them over the years.

[customerserviceguy]

58. Yes, part "a" is the only operative part

But any one of us can express views that are an annoyance to the person next to us, or in the same store, if we get on the PA system. As for alarm, I don't recall reading that there was any kind of mass panic. Had that happened, this clearly would have been a crime.

As others here have said, it looks like this kid is going to get some sensitivity training, and some sort of negotiated community service that gives him some exposure to African-Americans might be worthwhile, as well.

[jberryhill]

63. Because you were given the wrong statute

folding that one into this:

2C:16-1. Bias Intimidation.

2C:16-1. Bias Intimidation.

a.Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,

(1)with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or

(2)knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or

(3)under circumstances that caused any victim of the underlying offense to be intimidated and the victim, considering the manner in which the offense was committed, reasonably believed either that (a) the offense was committed with a purpose to intimidate the victim or any person or entity in whose welfare the victim is interested because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity, or (b) the victim or the victim's property was selected to be the target of the offense because of the victim's race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.

b.Permissive inference concerning selection of targeted person or property. Proof that the target of the underlying offense was selected by the defendant, or by another acting in concert with the defendant, because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity shall give rise to a permissive inference by the trier of fact that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.

c.Grading. Bias intimidation is a crime of the fourth degree if the underlying offense referred to in subsection a. is a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense. Otherwise, bias intimidation is a crime one degree higher than the most serious underlying crime referred to in subsection a., except that where the underlying crime is a crime of the first degree, bias intimidation is a first-degree crime and the defendant upon conviction thereof may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-6, be sentenced to an ordinary term of imprisonment between 15 years and 30 years, with a presumptive term of 20 years.

d.Gender exemption in sexual offense prosecutions. It shall not be a violation of subsection a. if the underlying criminal offense is a violation of chapter 14 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes and the circumstance specified in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of subsection a. of this section is based solely upon the gender of the victim.

e.Merger. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction for bias intimidation shall not merge with a conviction of any of the underlying offenses referred to in subsection a. of this section, nor shall any conviction for such underlying offense merge with a conviction for bias intimidation. The court shall impose separate sentences upon a conviction for bias intimidation and a conviction of any underlying offense.

f.Additional Penalties. In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-6, a court may order a person convicted of bias intimidation to one or more of the following:

(1)complete a class or program on sensitivity to diverse communities, or other similar training in the area of civil rights;

(2)complete a counseling program intended to reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior; and

(3)make payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of bias intimidation.

g.As used in this section "gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender related identity or expression whether or not stereotypically associated with a person's assigned sex at birth.

h.It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for a crime under this section that the defendant was mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim.

L.2001, c.443, s.1; amended 2007, c.303, s.1.

[DeSwiss]

59. From the NYT:

The boy, from Atlantic County, was charged by Gloucester County authorities with bias and intimidation and harassment in connection with the episode last Sunday. If convicted, he could face up to a year in a juvenile detention center, officials said. His name was not released because he is a minor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/nyregion/21walmart.html

[Jkid]

17. He'll get off with a fine and community service.

[npk]

54. He's a juvenile, 16 YOA

In most states about all they can do at that age is sentence the person to a fine and maybe some sort of community service. Community service would be the best fit for this kid as it might give him a glimpse into what he will be doing for the majority of the rest of his life.

[Enrique]

2. and a star is born

this fellow will be hailed as a hero and a victim and could have a bright political future. :thumbsup:

[ladywnch]

4. exactly. the teabaggers will have posters of his by COB today. n/t

[booley]

5. what law was broken

This was offensive and stupid and the guy should be fired.

But arrested?

IF people can be arrested for offending another, then wont' that bite us in the ass when cons are back in power? Don't we risk becoming the very kind of straw liberal PC Fascists that cons claim we are?

[Aristus]

6. I suppose an argument could be made that it was malicious misuse of private property.

Anyway, he made a corporation look bad. In our brave new corporatocracy, that has got to be close to a capital crime...

[skepticscott]

12. I'm sure they'll try to gin up something

to charge him with, even if it means applying some obscure law and distorting its intent beyond all recognition.

[kestrel91316]

44. Sounds like you totally support what he said. Please explain yourself.

[rantormusing]

53. they don't have to explain nothing

Can't you see the skeptic in his name, par for the course that calmer thinkers would think beyond the prison cell. A stupid action, make sure he didn't steal anything, and kick him out of the store, problem solved. Arrest and jailtime shouldn't even be in the discussion.

[skepticscott]

61. I don't support what he said

But I also don't support charging and punishing someone criminally if there is no law on the books that prohibits what they did, even if people think there should have been, after the fact. Same thing with the Internet bullying case that led to a girl's suicide ( in Indiana, if I recall correctly). What happened in that case rightfully outraged people, but there was no law against it, so they ginned up a charge of "unauthorized access to a computer" or some such BS, just so they could charge the woman with SOMETHING.

Do you not get what a dangerous and egregious violation of the rule of law that sort of thing can be?

[booley]

26. article didnt' load before

it did say harrassment and bias incident. And he is not an employee.

But again, not sure this rises to that level. It seems more like a prank

Ban him from wal-marts for life, change the system so it cant' happen again and move on.

This was a teen age kid. Teen age kids do stupid and even offensive things.

[RedCloud]

28. This is akin to yelling fire in public.

[Igel]

56. You're often allowed to yell "fire" in public.

The idea was originally that if you yelled "fire" in a crowded theatre, people would get hurt rushing to the door. It would create unnecessary and harmful--not as in "hurt feelings" but as in "broken bones"--panic.

If you want to go to the middle of the park and yell "fire," really, there'll be no panic. People will look around and wonder what you mean.

This was offensive. Criminal, dunno. Unless, perhaps, if all the blacks in the Walmart immediately rushed towards the exit or there would naturally be the expectation that they all would. That assumption, however, seems to be just about as offensive as the original utterance.

[Lance_Boyle]

68. not even close

This is akin to yelling "black people leave the store" in a store, with a PA system substituting for the yelling. There was no incitement, no attempt to create panic, no fear of death or violence imparted. This was a childhood prank. But leave it to DU's whiner-warriors to call for the kid's scalp.

[No Elephants]

8. Read the OP article instead of falling for a troll's post.

[petronius]

15. Beyond the general term "bias incident", the OP doesn't state which law

was broken. The "troll" asked a valid question...

[jberryhill]

64. "Bias intimidation" is a disorderly in NJ....

2C:16-1. Bias Intimidation.

a.Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,

(1)with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or

(2)knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or

(3)under circumstances that caused any victim of the underlying offense to be intimidated and the victim, considering the manner in which the offense was committed, reasonably believed either that (a) the offense was committed with a purpose to intimidate the victim or any person or entity in whose welfare the victim is interested because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity, or (b) the victim or the victim's property was selected to be the target of the offense because of the victim's race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.

b.Permissive inference concerning selection of targeted person or property. Proof that the target of the underlying offense was selected by the defendant, or by another acting in concert with the defendant, because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity shall give rise to a permissive inference by the trier of fact that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.

c.Grading. Bias intimidation is a crime of the fourth degree if the underlying offense referred to in subsection a. is a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense. Otherwise, bias intimidation is a crime one degree higher than the most serious underlying crime referred to in subsection a., except that where the underlying crime is a crime of the first degree, bias intimidation is a first-degree crime and the defendant upon conviction thereof may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-6, be sentenced to an ordinary term of imprisonment between 15 years and 30 years, with a presumptive term of 20 years.

d.Gender exemption in sexual offense prosecutions. It shall not be a violation of subsection a. if the underlying criminal offense is a violation of chapter 14 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes and the circumstance specified in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of subsection a. of this section is based solely upon the gender of the victim.

e.Merger. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction for bias intimidation shall not merge with a conviction of any of the underlying offenses referred to in subsection a. of this section, nor shall any conviction for such underlying offense merge with a conviction for bias intimidation. The court shall impose separate sentences upon a conviction for bias intimidation and a conviction of any underlying offense.

f.Additional Penalties. In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-6, a court may order a person convicted of bias intimidation to one or more of the following:

(1)complete a class or program on sensitivity to diverse communities, or other similar training in the area of civil rights;

(2)complete a counseling program intended to reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior; and

(3)make payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of bias intimidation.

g.As used in this section "gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender related identity or expression whether or not stereotypically associated with a person's assigned sex at birth.

h.It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for a crime under this section that the defendant was mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim.

L.2001, c.443, s.1; amended 2007, c.303, s.1.

[Trillo]

31. Self-delete

[awoke_in_2003]

62. +1. nt

[bonnieS]

16. where does it say he was an employee?

[sandrakae]

19. Was it an employee?

[Crabby Appleton]

22. Don't think so

[mbperrin]

38. Not an employee, a customer, a 16 year old. More details:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Teen-charged-in-NJ-Walmart-apf-588972312.html/print;_ylt=ApOidqQpV5oTkA7EcBCWhmTeba9_;_ylu=X3oDMTBwNjZiaWw5BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b29scwRzbGsDcHJpbnQ-?x=0

Teen charged in NJ Walmart racial comment case
16-year-old boy charged with making racial comment over intercom at southern NJ Walmart

Bruce Shipkowski, Associated Press Writer, On Saturday March 20, 2010, 3:14 pm EDT

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) -- A 16-year-old boy patronizing a Walmart store in southern New Jersey took over the public-address system and ordered black people to leave, angering customers and prompting company leaders to apologize, police said Saturday.

Police said the boy, whose name is not being released because he is a juvenile, went on the intercom at Walmart's Washington Township store Sunday evening and calmly announced: "Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now."

The teen was arrested Friday on charges of harassment and bias intimidation. Authorities said he was released to the custody of his parents; they did not know whether he had a lawyer.

"This was an extremely disturbing event on many levels," Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean Dalton said at a news conference. "Any statements like these that can cause harm or grave concern must be addressed as quickly we possibly can."

Dalton said the case would be handled in juvenile court in neighboring Atlantic County, where the boy lives. He would not say whether the boy has a criminal record, citing the teen's age, and would not disclose the teen's race, saying that did not factor into the investigation.

Authorities would not say whether the announcement was planned or made impulsively. Police said they were also investigating a teenage boy who accompanied the suspect to the store, but they had not charged the other boy.

Although a manager quickly went on the intercom system and apologized for the remark, many customers expressed their anger to store management. Some community members said Saturday that they've heard reports of similar incidents happening at the store in recent months that were not reported to police.

"We are concerned about that, and we're looking into these incidents. We want to work with the community to make sure these types of incidents don't happen," said Loretta Winters, president of the Gloucester County chapter of the NAACP.

Winters said she hopes the boy will get counseling and be educated about sensitivity so he can understand the consequences of his actions. more at link

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I want to know that too

What law was broken?

[mbperrin]

37. Looks like NJSA 2C:33-4. See post 35 above

Thanks!

[FredStembottom]

24. ...possibly not even offensive.

"Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now."

For awhile I wondered if this wasn't a renewed expression of the Buy Freedom movement from a few years ago - where black people would pool their buying power to patronize local black business owners.

Folks, I really, really do not want to go back to the Thought Police type of liberalism of the 70's.

[panzerfaust]

60. ? Hate speech, or Being Racist in Public ...

Still, the KKK gets to run off at the mouth.

How about "Public Nuisance" or "Disturbance of the peace" are these still recognized as valid?

"All blacks/browns/yellows/reds (oh, yeah - so make that whites) are required to leave the country now" - the kid is simply a teabagger type tool. He should have to pay a fine for being a racist idiot.

It is oft said that at one time in the South some towns and counties (here in Texas, often the same) had signs saying "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you here!"

I do not know if the signs were apocryphal or not, but I do know that such a sentiment was certainly present. Sentiments shared by people such as the MalWart announcer.

No one should be singled out for abuse because of the color of their skin.

[Gman2]

7. He is lucky to be locked up. His chances on the street, are less than islamic cartoonists.

[No Elephants]

9. Really? California noose woman seems to be alive and well. And this guy may not be locked up.

[marshall]

14. Noose woman claimed ignorance, which I doubt this man can do

And she is an international student, presumably a minority. It puts her actions in a different context, assuming this Wal Mart cretin is a WASP.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Oh bullshit nt

[stanwyck]

10. Ah, another Joe the Plumber is born.

He can show up at Palin.Bachman rallies and spout his political beliefs. How much do you want to bet he's a birther? Maybe he'll write a book.
Never underestimate the right's thirst for a new low-brow hero.

[japple]

13. Every time something like this happens, I look to see where the

incident occured. Sometimes I am able to breathe a sigh and say "thank god that didn't happen in the South."

[unabelladonna]

18. it seems more like a silly prank

the culprit should do some community service but locking him up is a bit excessive. i wouldn't be surprised if he is a teenager.

[skepticscott]

21. You might not think

it was just a "silly prank" if you were black. Nevertheless, unless there was an actual law on the books that he broke, he shouldn't be punished by the government at all, not with jail, a fine, or community service. Wal-Mart can and should fire him, but that's the extent of it.

[liberal N proud]

20. I didn't know there were Palm Trees in New Jersey

Picture on Crappy News Network story:


http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/20/walmart.racial.remark/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

[name not needed]

25. This guy is a fucking idiot, but last I checked massive idiocy does not warrant jail time.

[RedCloud]

27. He's a 16 year old and will be in juvenile court.

Read the link before you think!

[Th1onein]

29. There was no criminality involved in this incident.

And, although I hate what the speaker was saying, it is the essence of freedom of speech that we be able to speak in a manner that is offensive to others.

Walmart needs to get a better PA system.

[annabanana]

30. Dumb 16 year old kid thought he was being funny...

(Stupid to throw the book at him, IMHO)

[Trillo]

32. WalMart gets off Scot-Free? but they're charging a stupid kid?

"We're pleased this matter is resolved," Walmart spokesman David Tovar said in a statement issued after the news conference. "We have updated our intercom system at this store to prevent this from happening again. We again apologize to all of our customers and associates who had to listen to something so offensive."

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. Hypocrisy how? Walmart didn't say it. The kid did.

If I burn a cross on your lawn, should you get arrested because it's your lawn?

[Trillo]

36. Then why make any changes to the intercom system?

Making those changes essentially admits some responsibility, but this responsibility is qualitatively different from what is being forced on the kid.

[Regret My New Name]

39. Question, if this wasn't Walmart, would you have the same opinion?

I don't think the kid should have been arrested for this stupid thing. Instead, I think banning him from the stores, some community service or maybe a fine would have been enough. However, I don't understand what you think Walmart did in this case. They are not responsible for people who are assholes. It's not Walmart's fault that someone, somewhere, decided to pick up the intercom system and say something stupid over it. What if someone decided to run through the store naked while poking people with sporks? Is that Walmarts fault? What if Walmart put in place a system where each person is searched for sporks and fully verified to be 100% clothed before they could even enter the stores? Would that change mean that Walmart was responsible for the previous incident of the nude sporker?

[Trillo]

41. It's not WalMart that's the issue for me.

What's at issue is Corporation Versus Stupid Human 16-year old.

Like it or not, kids do these kinds of stupid things from time to time, particularly teenagers. If the kid's reported statement was true, then where's the threat? Yelling "fire" in a theater means your life is threatened if you don't leave immediately, and the action of such a mass exodus quickly leaving can create a riot. Yet, that is not what is stated in the article as having happened. People got mad and complained to management is essentially what I read. In response, WalMart changed its intercom system, admitting partial responsibility. Yet they are not being "arrested", only the kid is.

If you read, "Job Opportunities" and "send $150", and you're stupid enough to fall for it, should you later claim you were "threatened" in order to back-harass the advertiser?

[Dreamer Tatum]

42. Bullshit. The "corporation" didn't arrest him. nt

[Trillo]

43. Precisely. The laws are not being applied fairly. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. So my kid can set your house on fire and you should be charged with arson...gotcha nt

[Trillo]

52. What property did this kid destroy? nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. I don't think he should have been arrested at all, so you're barking up the wrong tree nt

[kestrel91316]

45. The kid went to Walmart and got on their intercom. He needs to keep his

douchebag hands off other people's property for one thing. He wasn't an employee. He had to trespass in some way to do this.

[Trillo]

47. In a store where the public is encouraged to browse, even inspect items for possible purchase?

Read the packaging. Examine a sample. Compare several similar items. Make a purchase. Where they usually have a fast food joint?

On the other hand, I rather doubt the kid thought what he was doing perfectly okay, it seems to me like a prank. The word "black" so far as I'm aware doesn't carry racial stigma, unless the label itself is stigmatizing. However, the context it was used in, to separate blacks from others does harken back to days of separation, pre-civil rights, riding at the back of the bus, etc. Perhaps the kid thought long and hard about precisely what he was going to say.

When big people's money is at stake, we have bank corporations that are willing to tell congress to take us to court to find out where that money was spent, in order to protect their customer's privacy, however, these particular customers are other corporations. But in a "private" yet open-to-the-public corporate store, non-corporate "Human" customers' privacy is non-existent?

[jberryhill]

70. They are not encouraged to mess with the PA system, the cash registers, the safe... /nt

[marshall]

46. Wal Mart is NOT this child's mother or father

I could see extending some kind of penalty or arrest to a parent if it were proven that they contributed to the delinquency of a minor. But Wal Mart is not in the position to be a parent to this child.

[Trillo]

51. True. But what really does the canard "delinquency of a minor" mean?

In the large scheme of reality, what the kid did was relatively harmless. He didn't have a gun. He wasn't throwing rocks. He didn't destroy property.

Guilty? Of what? Showing WalMart that they didn't have enough security? Guilty of making some other customers mad?

When do we get to have someone arrested just for making us mad? Seems a real stretch. Like surreal.

[Regret My New Name]

40. Sounds like something that was dreamed up on /b/

or something similar...

Hmmm. 16 year old boy... Oh yeah.

[customerserviceguy]

48. That was my concern, when I read the word 'arrest'

He wasn't trespassing, he didn't break into and enter WalMart.

If I were ever to go to one of their stores (I don't shop there), and go in looking for help, but instead see a couple of their 'associates' farting around gossiping, would I be committing a crime if I went to the PA system and said, "Attention WalMart shoppers, the assclown associates in aisle five are too busy discussing Sandra Bullock's marriage, could someone help me find screwdrivers in the hardware department?"

I would expect to be kicked out, certainly, but I would not expect the law to get involved with this matter.

[jberryhill]

65. He was trespassing

Trespassing is not only entry onto premises without an invitation, it is also exceeding the scope of the conditions of your entry.

For example, I tell you that you can enter my house, but you cannot sit on my couch. When you sit on my couch, you are trespassing.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. I don't see how sitting on a couch, after one has been invited inside,

could be considered trespassing, especially since most front doors open up to the living room, where most people have a couch. Really-- are you going to invite someone into your house, but not ask them if they want to sit down?

On the other hand, if you limit that person's access to your living room, and they start poking around in other rooms, then I think it could be considered trespassing.

[jberryhill]

69. Exceeding Scope Of Authority To Be On Premises

It's not a question of where you go. It can also be one of what you do. Even if I invite you in, you cannot do whatever you want. Like sitting in Archie Bunker's chair...


http://www.google.com/search?q=trespassing+exceeding+scope+of+authority

[Art_from_Ark]

72. I don't see how that could hold up in court

If you invite someone into your house, it's only courtesy to ask if they would like to sit down. The most logical place to me would be the couch. I can envision Judge Judy having a great time with a "trespassing on the couch" case.

[classysassy]

66. Hate is destroying America

Limbaugh,Beck and their fans are doing more to destroy America than the rest of our critics through out the world.

[Socal31]

71. Wow...

Are we in the UK or the US?


Someone should kick the idiot's ass for bad taste and being a moron, but arrest?