Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 fishy bob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, seems more like the store needs to be sued the most. Cops got a tip and followed on it.
Also. 350$ belt? What is the point of expensive clothes that dont look different from ones you get at a thrift store.

Wait so for the work blocked who called who and for what???

The store called the police saying the kids credit card was fake. How the store came to that I do not know.

OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

I think they've had to have done it before, this is probably just the first kid to stand up and call BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, seems more like the store needs to be sued the most. Cops got a tip and followed on it.
Also. 350$ belt? What is the point of expensive clothes that dont look different from ones you get at a thrift store.

Wait so for the work blocked who called who and for what???

The store called the police saying the kids credit card was fake. How the store came to that I do not know.

OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Cuz in the first story it is alleged that the Police referred to him as a Young Black Man who couldn't have that kind of money.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The place he bought it from called the PoPO saying it was fraudulant, they just did their job and followed up on it

Yeah, as more details come out on this, I'm finding it harder to fault the police. Once his identity had been confirmed through his bank (who held the card), he was released. Doesn't seem like they pulled a Rodney King on him or anything. The store seems to be the one at fault, making the assumption the "black man" didn't have the kind of money to buy something like that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, seems more like the store needs to be sued the most. Cops got a tip and followed on it.
Also. 350$ belt? What is the point of expensive clothes that dont look different from ones you get at a thrift store.

Wait so for the work blocked who called who and for what???

The store called the police saying the kids credit card was fake. How the store came to that I do not know.

OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

No clue. Perhaps the "How can a black boy afford a 350 dollar belt" remark.

 Frazzled wrote:


OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Because calling the police with "I think this guy just ripped us off" is not something that should lead to an arrest. When he told them he bought it with a debit card with money he saved from his job they had 0 basis for an arrest. It's not unlawful for them to arrest him, but it was a waste of police time, tax dollars, and to outside observers easily made to scream of underlying racism (and the store most definitely was probably being racist when they decided a young black kid in 'meh' clothing couldn't possible legitimately buy something expensive).

The kid will get his money regardless of police intentions. Is NYC and just about everyone who isn't a cop hates the cops there.

I'm curious if they said that, or they said "How can a young man like yourself afford that" and he just injected the black part?

I'm not saying it went either way, but it's not a hard stretch for me to believe he assumed this was do to racism, and that's what he "remembers".

Police will most likely just settle out on this one. I imagine NYPD has a large slush fund for such occasions.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm curious if they said that, or they said "How can a young man like yourself afford that" and he just injected the black part?

I'm not saying it went either way, but it's not a hard stretch for me to believe he assumed this was do to racism, and that's what he "remembers".

Police will most likely just settle out on this one. I imagine NYPD has a large slush fund for such occasions.

Agreed on the who knows point. There's already a difference between both stories in the quote of the police so I doubt we'll ever really know.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Because calling the police with "I think this guy just ripped us off" is not something that should lead to an arrest. When he told them he bought it with a debit card with money he saved from his job they had 0 basis for an arrest. It's not unlawful for them to arrest him, but it was a waste of police time, tax dollars, and to outside observers easily made to scream of underlying racism (and the store most definitely was probably being racist when they decided a young black kid in 'meh' clothing couldn't possible legitimately buy something expensive).

The kid will get his money regardless of police intentions. Is NYC and just about everyone who isn't a cop hates the cops there.

Would it have been racist if it was an obviously lower class white kid? Just curious since it obviously has to be about race and cant' be about perceived station right?

 Hulksmash wrote:


Would it have been racist if it was an obviously lower class white kid? Just curious since it obviously has to be about race and cant' be about perceived station right?

I can say in all honesty I doubt they would have called the cops on a white kid. I've been to New York. It may be in the North but racism is alive and well there much more than it is in many Southern cities.

 Bobaram wrote:
I think they've had to have done it before, this is probably just the first kid to stand up and call BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, seems more like the store needs to be sued the most. Cops got a tip and followed on it.
Also. 350$ belt? What is the point of expensive clothes that dont look different from ones you get at a thrift store.

Wait so for the work blocked who called who and for what???

The store called the police saying the kids credit card was fake. How the store came to that I do not know.

OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Cuz in the first story it is alleged that the Police referred to him as a Young Black Man who couldn't have that kind of money.

mmm thats not good. Don't see it being legally liable for anything though. I'd question anyone kid with enough money for a $350 belt. Then I would question their sanity. Then I would ask, why they hell they aren't at school/work/hunting mastadons. Then I would start shouting at everyone to get the heck off my lawn.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bobaram wrote:
I think they've had to have done it before, this is probably just the first kid to stand up and call BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, seems more like the store needs to be sued the most. Cops got a tip and followed on it.
Also. 350$ belt? What is the point of expensive clothes that dont look different from ones you get at a thrift store.

Wait so for the work blocked who called who and for what???

The store called the police saying the kids credit card was fake. How the store came to that I do not know.

OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Cuz in the first story it is alleged that the Police referred to him as a Young Black Man who couldn't have that kind of money.

mmm thats not good. Don't see it being legally liable for anything though. I'd question anyone kid with enough money for a $350 belt. Then I would question their sanity. Then I would ask, why they hell they aren't at school/work/hunting mastadons. Then I would start shouting at everyone to get the heck off my lawn.

The Mastadon problem really has gone on for far too long. One ate my tree just last week!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


OK in that case why is he suing the police? They checked it out and released him, or is there something else?

Because calling the police with "I think this guy just ripped us off" is not something that should lead to an arrest. When he told them he bought it with a debit card with money he saved from his job they had 0 basis for an arrest. It's not unlawful for them to arrest him, but it was a waste of police time, tax dollars, and to outside observers easily made to scream of underlying racism (and the store most definitely was probably being racist when they decided a young black kid in 'meh' clothing couldn't possible legitimately buy something expensive).

The kid will get his money regardless of police intentions. Is NYC and just about everyone who isn't a cop hates the cops there.

Actually you have a point. they have to have reasonable grounds that a crime has been committed for an arrest. Where is the evidence?
-Any crime noted?
-official receipt
-id
-official card.

I seem to be missing a lot. Where is the reasonable here? I give up. Sue erveyone and stay the heck off my lawn you mastadons!!!

There really wasn't any. There was enough to walk to the kid and ask him I suppose but when he gave a plausible answer arresting taking him into custody was stepping into the gray area of "why are we doing this again?"

It's not going to look good for NYPD. Everyone already thinks they're a bunch of racists cause of the stop and frisk thing (no comment on whether they are actually racists just saying the perception is there).

As far as I understood it, the police need no reason to take you into custody. To "arrest" you they do, but then charges need to be filed.

My bad. Poor choice of word for that bit.

 djones520 wrote:
As far as I understood it, the police need no reason to take you into custody. To "arrest" you they do, but then charges need to be filed.

Taking you into custody against your consent is an arrest.

Noir wrote:
How do think the cops knew he just paid for a $350 belt when they walk up to him.

Because his trousers weren't half way down to his knees

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
As far as I understood it, the police need no reason to take you into custody. To "arrest" you they do, but then charges need to be filed.

Taking you into custody against your consent is an arrest.

Pretty much. And for the rest of his life, any time he has to fill out a job/credit/mortgage application, he's going to have to answer "Yes" to the "Have you ever been arrested?" question, which frankly sucks.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
As far as I understood it, the police need no reason to take you into custody. To "arrest" you they do, but then charges need to be filed.

Taking you into custody against your consent is an arrest.

Pretty much. And for the rest of his life, any time he has to fill out a job/credit/mortgage application, he's going to have to answer "Yes" to the "Have you ever been arrested?" question, which frankly sucks.

I thought that question was, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" At least in Ohio it's that question and it usually has a 5 year window on it.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
As far as I understood it, the police need no reason to take you into custody. To "arrest" you they do, but then charges need to be filed.

Taking you into custody against your consent is an arrest.

Pretty much. And for the rest of his life, any time he has to fill out a job/credit/mortgage application, he's going to have to answer "Yes" to the "Have you ever been arrested?" question, which frankly sucks.

Don't they ask "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" ?

That's at least how it's worded here in Canada.

I've only ever seen it as: Have you ever been convicted of ____?

I've seen applications that ask if I've been arrested and ones that ask if I've been convicted (convicted more often).

 LordofHats wrote:
I've seen applications that ask if I've been arrested and ones that ask if I've been convicted (convicted more often).

I've seen both. The amount of money involved, or the level of "trust" associated with the job, may be a factor. (E.g., every state bar application I've ever encountered wants explanation of almost every encounter you've ever had with the police above the level of parking tickets.)

I have also seen both, sometimes on the same application.

 djones520 wrote:
The store seems to be the one at fault, making the assumption the "black man" didn't have the kind of money to buy something like that.

That I can easily believe. The sales staff in places like that can be quite snobbish and can be dismissive and suspicious of anyone who isn't wearing the right clothes, let alone any other prejudices they may have.

If you are called to investigate credit card fraud, and you approach the person accused of having a fake credit card, and you find that his two IDs match him and his debit card, then what further probable cause do you have to arrest him at this point?

Other than "young black kids couldn't have this kind of money [unless it is criminal]".

 d-usa wrote:
If you are called to investigate credit card fraud, and you approach the person accused of having a fake credit card, and you find that his two IDs match him and his debit card, then what further probable cause do you have to arrest him at this point?

Other than "young black kids couldn't have this kind of money [unless it is criminal]".

Bingo, in the past when I worked in sales plenty of individuals who seemed suspect (large camera purchase made with no questions beforehand) had proper id, nothing we could do. The odd one would end up being credit card fraud but those individuals certainly had gone in with a plan (or had stolen wallets from their dopplegangers).

In this case, how the hell did the kid end up in custody?

 Crablezworth wrote:
individuals who seemed suspect (large camera purchase made with no questions beforehand)

I do stuff like that all the time...woops. I research what I want online/through others that I know who have the same stuff (be it phones, camera, laptop, stuff like that), then just find the best place for it nearby and walk in, buy it, leave. I never thought how weird that'd look from the other side until now...

 Frazzled wrote:
Not sure why he is suing the department store-unless they called the poolice or something. I see why he is suing the PoPo.

Someone at the store must have called. Unless the cops happen to see him walk out from Barney's. This is ridiculous. I hope this young man takes lots of money from Suck York and Barney's.

I'm also seeing some pretty weak PC here.

If Barneys called them and said it was a fraudulent card, then that's a different story, but that does not seem to be the case. With the facts as I've read them here there really does not seem to have been grounds to arrest him - at most, the brief detainment and questioning was legal (I won't address the comments allegedly made).