posted
Hmmm... I'm working retail presently for a jewlery store We have specific -phone- directions on how to handle things. We're instructed that if anybody makes us feel uncomfortable on the phone we're to get the manager. If he's not there we're to ask if we can tape the conversation- if they say yes we do so, if they say no we're to tell them "sorry, I can't help you, have a good day" and hang up right away. If they continue to call and bother us, we're to record the phone number and call the police.
As far as the manager having us do things we're uncomfortable with we're to get mall management to come and intercede and we're to call headquarters.
(I've never worked fast food, and this is my second tiem working retail (the first time was a short stint because I didn't like it), so I have no idea what they practice for the most part)
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, so far asside from impersonating a police officer, they can only charge him (in kentucky at least) with things like solicitation, coersion, etc. but no felonies asside from impersonating a police officer.
Hence the "most states." The federal law regarding principals says:
quote:Sec. 2. Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Many states have similar rules.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legal question: Does the fact that the caller was in Florida and the victim in Kentucky make this prosecutable as a Federal crime?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did a little more research on the Travel Act, but it's probably not applicable. The violence has to be in furtherence of specific activities (gambling, etc.) to be illegal under the act.
I'd have to look for something else.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might there be something under the laws used to prosecute internet crimes that would be applicable?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wire fraud requires the intent to acquire property. Property can be tangible or intangible, but it must be property in both the hands of the victim and the hands of the defendant. Even if you could make some case that he's getting "property" by getting some cheap thrills he might have to pay for, it's certainly not property to the person being searched. So wire fraud is a no go.
Can't find any other possibilities yet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I certainly have a strong personality. I would not have fallen for the caller. I also would not have put up with the search. I certainly would not have had sex after being told to, or if someone else tried to do it with me that was told to. The level of intellect that post here may be a bit higher than some of the people involved. I have friends who truly believe almost every urban legend they hear. Things that seem so ridiculous to me that I wonder how they can possibly believe them. Not everyone is bright as non PC as that is to say. Some people are just gullible. If you hadn’t read the employee manual then I can see some logic in a strip search to see if she had it on her. I do find the manager culpability after that though. How calling your boyfriend in would make any sense is past what I can imagine. Others I think are deserving of repercussions. I agree with Grisha. It is beyond what I can understand how you would not think something was going on when the guy told you to cover the girl back up whenever your fiancée came into the room. Why do that unless something needs to be hidden? Or how it would promote a police investigation. Hold your ‘gun’ on her and see if she talks? I think the desires where there and this was an easy excuse and avoidance of responsibility. I even believe he felt bad afterwards. People do unbelievable things in the moment. As for the employee, if you’ve ever been in a lock up situation and have no real idea what your rights are or are not, it can be intimidating. I can understand stripping and waiting, even doing the jumping around.
quote: I can understand stripping and waiting, even doing the jumping around.
I guess I can too, because I know some people do not react to things as I do. If someone, anyone, told me to strip while I was at work, I would walk out right then and go to the police.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember the first time I saw flashing red lights behind me. I remember it because my heart was palpating in my throat, my adrenaline flash was screaming through my nerves, and my mind was in a state of terror/dread. It wasn’t such a big deal but it had never happened before. Now I just say “Ah… rats”. The difference is experience and some of the lessons are not much fun. Fortunately other parts are lots of fun.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, being straight out of high school in her first job is probably part of why she didn't argue more.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first thing that I find really disturbing about this is how little these people know about their rights and simple police proceedure.
The idea that the police might call and employer and ask him/her to detain and strip search an employee is laughable to anyone who understands the rights of employees, employers and police proceedure. When you add to that calling in the managers boy friend to physically and sexually abuse an employee, I can't see how anyone could believe the police might legally make such a request.
Secondly, I find it very disturbing that this was done at a place of employment and that so many people were willing to believe that an employer/manager had some authority of an employee regarding a investigation of a crime that did not occur in the work place. Though I can't prove it, I suspect that if these calls had been made to private residences and people had been asked to strip search and abuse a roommate or family member, far fewer people would have complied.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think "question authority" implies anarchy. When it comes down to it, people are ultimately in charge of themselves. If obedience is unquestioned, then you've given over your moral agency to someone else, which is always a mistake.
That's not to say that DISobedience should be the rule, either. Just that every order from authority should be questioned to be sure it's reasonable and valid. Authorities that prove themselves over time to be trustworthy, and motivated by the good of the individual and the greater good, gain trust and then are granted more authority over the individual's judgements. Authorities that prove themselves to be arbitrary and cruel, or motivated by self-interest, lose trust and ultimately have no authority.
This is true for governments as well as bosses, parents, teachers, older siblings, pet owners, etc.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first thing that I find really disturbing about this is how little these people know about their rights and simple police proceedure.
This is a HUGE problem. Ultimately, we only get the rights we as individuals assert. It's unfortunate, and we definitely should try to stop people from infringing on others rights.
But ultimately the best defense is making sure people know what their rights are and know they have to assert them.
And punishing without mercy those who seek retribution for someone asserting rights.
It's bad enough that people consent away their rights to legitimate authority because they think they have to. It's even more disturbing that it leaves them vulnerable to these kinds of predators.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said before, its all about the foot in the door technique. Granted, these people should be held responsible for what they did. But we should also remember that none of them would have done those things if not for the influence of the percieved authority figure.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My day job is being a security officer. One of the things they taught us that we are never to touch anyone...even a touch can be considered wrongful arrest or even assault.
There are three levels to security: corporate/civilian security guards, Security Police, and Peace Officers/Police.
Security guards have no power of arrest, Security Police are glorified security guards who have the power of arrest for misdemeanors on whatever property they guard, and Peace Officers can arrest anywhere, obviously.
So...if I was ever asked to strip-search someone, I know to refuse. I would need to be deputized before I could possible do this, and over the phone is not s.o.p.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
The use of the word "sodomy" threw me though. Then I remembered it's *other* definition - which made a lot more sense.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askew: "Question authority" is a double-edged sword. It give people who want to ignore what they should do an excuse. In my experience people are generally looking for some excuse to do what they want, or avoid responsibility for their actions. Everyone has urges they suppress. Can you have a working society with the principle of “question authority?” Like ice in a lake, the veneer we put over our desires and animal nature varies from person to person. If you find a thin place it’s easy to bring it to the surface. Most of us feel bad for the victim. But to raise it to a point that we bend the problem the opposite way isn’t a solution. If you take the opposite tact, you just have the opposite problems, and “question authority” is the rallying cry for anarchy.
What really needs to become a cultural meme is not so much "question authority" but "critical thinking". If you learn the latter, the former is automatic and in-check. For instance, at almost any point in the instance most detailed in the linked article, a modicum of critical thinking could have ended the trials of this young girl before they went so far. The manager could simply have told the police to send a squad car. After all, she is not a policeman. She has no proof over the phone that the person giving commands is a policeman. The assistant manager, even though (hell, especially because) he didn't know what was going on on the phone should have demanded the incident stop and the police be called. The boyfriend called in later should have known he had no authority in the incident and given the extreme nature of the things he was being asked to do should have demanded extreme proof of the caller's credentials.
Sure, experiments show that people become sheep when they accept authority. Sure, "question authority" becomes the mantra of the other extreme. Like nearly everything else in life, the truth lies somewhere in the happy medium. I think critical thinking should be a class in every high-school, mandatory for graduation. This article is a near perfect object lesson for such a class.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Authorities that prove themselves to be arbitrary and cruel, or motivated by self-interest, lose trust and ultimately have no authority.
This is true for governments as well as bosses, parents, teachers, older siblings, pet owners, etc.
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Way back when I was being talked to by the school counselor for biting a boy (I was seven), the message she gave me was that it was 'normal' for the boy to pick on me. He pulled my coat off on the playground trying to catch me, and when he caught me he pulled my arm until I had an 'indian burn'. I bit him to make him let go, because I had tried everything else.
He was 'normal' for attacking me, but I was 'abnormal' for thinking of an effective way to stop him and implementing it.
That is when the school system lost moral authority over me, by proving I didn't matter as much as the boy. That is when the real troubles began.
Anarchy, no, but common sense seems to be becoming... less common.
There has to be something between anarchy and doing beastly things because somebody told you to.
Which is what I'm trying to teach my son. He gets punished at home for disobeying the teachers and acting up in school. I have to tell him to stay out of trouble, even though sometimes what they ask him to do doesn't make sense to him. But I still want to keep that spark of thinking for himself alive.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, just reading this story makes me shiver. It's so upsetting that I'm having trouble just trying to write a coherent response.
First of all, I think the fear, terror, dread, adrenaline, and uncertainty would make it very difficult for the victimized girl to think clearly about her situation and her options (none of which were very appealing). It's pretty hard to be rational when fear and instinct take over a person's mind.
My guess would be that she would desperately cling to the distant hope that if she just cooperated it would soon be over, as opposed to trying to resist with the fear that she would just have to repeat the same humiliating experience with even more people. I think many people would rather just get the ordeal over with instead of possibly creating even more problems and drawing out the experience even longer.
As for the managers and other people that carried out the caller's requests, I have nothing sympathetic to say about them. Yes, they were victimized, but they should still be held accountable for their actions.
Now, everyone talks about how the caller felt a sense of empowerment through these calls, but I don't think he was the only one. It is my opinion that everyone has an innate, but perhaps latent, desire for power and control. And I think this has an influence on how people react to certain situations. Some people are frightened by power, some people delight in it, and some people exert power as a means of coping with the things they do not have control over.
I don't think this all comes down to blind obedience. I think in some cases the requests of the caller play on a person's own subconscious desire for empowerment.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zeugma, is the modified title better, you think? I found this case very disturbing as well, and want to warn people appropriately.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After skimming through the linked article, I'm more grateful than ever that my parents raised me to question authority.
Now, I feel I have to explain, because some people seem to be thinking that "question authority" = "flaunt authority". That is not what I was taught at all. I was taught that just because someone is in a position of authority, it does not mean that they are necessarily wise, nor necessarily honest, and that if I was asked to do something that made me uncomfortable, I should find out why I was expected to do it before complying, and to respectfully refuse it the reasoning given did not resolve my questions. This principle certainly did not extend to things that I just didn't want to do, but only to things that struck me as wrong in some way.
Edit to clarify one sentence.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to trivialize this (At All), but I watch a lot of television, especially police dramas, and that, among other experiences, has taught me the limits of the law. It has also taught me that people can be manipulative and criminal. I know I am not a minority in my television-watching, and am flabbergasted that this creature got away with so much.
On the other hand, I do remember being a lackey at a fast food restaurant, and how unformed my character was at that point. I feel for these victims and identify with them. I was treated unkindly at the hands of a manager/owner once (not a chain restaurant), and regret not standing up for myself. I understand a little bit of how they were victimized.
I had to stop reading the article at a certain point.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I don't think "question authority" implies anarchy.
I agree “question authority” doesn’t imply anarchy, but it easily becomes an excuse for it. Think of people at work or other situations where people find all sorts of excuses to not do what they should. That’s why I like “confirm authority”. It’s syntax but the difference I see is one immediately brings an idea of opposition and one doesn’t. I am a very independent person, but I recognize the need for some chain of authority if we are going to achieve anything other than what we can do as individuals. I also recognize that people who pursue power can have agendas other than the benefit of the people working for them, and so there needs to be some check. I would use the example of Unions. At first the employers did terrible things to the workers. Not good. Then Unions gave workers power, and now the Unions (not all) allow a work ethic that can be pretty low. People tend towards extremes. If a little is good a lot is better.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: What really needs to become a cultural meme is not so much "question authority" but "critical thinking".
KarlEd reiterates the point of thought vs. question. How do you find a balance between doing what needs done and not being abused? As a subjective thing it’s difficult if not impossible to make a black and white distinction. It enters the grey areas of human thought and perception. The only way I can see to approach it is “think”. From the discussion here it seem pretty clear that most people contributing would not have obeyed the caller. This just underlines the point that the cross section of people contributing isn’t representative of humanity. If someone isn’t capable of the thought process to evaluate a situation, what can be done? (Specifically the manager and the strip search or the frightened girl allowing it. I still feel the boyfriend used the caller as an excuse to act out desires.) Or is it just nature in action selecting for those that can?
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But ultimately the best defense is making sure people know what their rights are and know they have to assert them.
There is another side to the rights issue at work here, people, namely managers and employers, assuming they have rights which they do not have. A phone call from the police does not give any one the right to detain and abuse another person. People need not only to understand and assert their own rights, they need to understand they rights of others and their limitations under the law.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
lma, I agree that questioning authority is not the same as flaunting it. I'm teaching my kids to question everything, in large part because of sick bastards like that.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is another side to the rights issue at work here, people, namely managers and employers, assuming they have rights which they do not have. A phone call from the police does not give any one the right to detain and abuse another person. People need not only to understand and assert their own rights, they need to understand they rights of others and their limitations under the law.
I agree, and these people should be punished severely. But ultimately, the final protection of rights rests with the holder. Had this young woman known more, she could have simply said, "have the police come find me" and walk out. I don't blame her one bit for not doing so. But I wish people were educated to the point where they know this is the appropriate response and were confident enough to make it.
Edit: I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong. At minimum, they had all the information to reach that conclusion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is my opinion that everyone has an innate, but perhaps latent, desire for power and control.
I suspect this is true as well, and it is disturbing and ugly that he was able to bring this out in them. Most humans keep their monstrous desires in check pretty well.
Remember how he had to call one place 10 times before he found someone who would play his sick little game? We hear about the cases where he succeeded more than the ones where he failed. He succeeded when he did because he found people who for whatever reason were not able to overcome his influence. And, of course, we are disturbed that he succeeded as often as he did.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong.
Me too. Maybe it's because of my having done some work in corporate managerial training, or my mom's work as a consultant, but I'm flabbergasted that anyone in any type of managerial position would not know that they don't have the right to do some of the things to employees that they did. I mean, one thing every manager should be drilled with is what type of liability the company has if they mistreat their employees, so I can't imagine a manager who wouldn't be terrified that the girl would sue her. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Is there no training at all for managerial positions in these companies? I mean sure, it's McDonald's they can't pay even their managers a lot of money, but it seems like the company would have some sort of managerial training in place just to protect its own interests.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like he targeted areas where the people were most likely to be isolated and uneducated. The system may break-down in rural areas.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had this young woman known more, she could have simply said, "have the police come find me" and walk out. I don't blame her one bit for not doing so. But I wish people were educated to the point where they know this is the appropriate response and were confident enough to make it.
I'm not convinced that more knowledge would necessarily have changed the outcome. Unfortunately there is a very lage gap between having knowledge and the ability to use knowledge to make a rational decision during high stress situations.
And just knowing that the police and/or manager has limitations doesn't necessarily mean they abide by them. So let's assume the girl knew that this shouldn't be happening but felt that she had no choice in the matter.
If she felt she was going to be strip searched either way, she may have actually preferred it was done by coworkers whom she thought would be a little more considerate than corrupt police officers.
Just the mere thought of being arrested in a restaurant, handcuffed, and dragged to a police station, humiliated by complete strangers and then left in a cell overnight might have frightened her enough to want to just get the ordeal over with as quickly as possible. People will endure quite a lot just to avoid public humiliation.
She probably thought the whole thing would be over in five minutes when it was discovered that she did not steal anything, so she didn't really have a reason to assume that things would go as far as they eventually did. Instead, she found herself completely naked with a guy twice her size, who would hit her when she didn't cooperate, standing between her and her only way out, with every reason to believe that she would have to endure all of this (and worse) over again if she didn't fully cooperate. Finding herself completely isolated after being turned on by her cowokers, business professionals, and the law enforcers who were supposed to serve and protect, any bit of confidence and determination was probably shattered long ago.
I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to think clearly under such a trying situation. The fact that after it was all over she asked if she had to come in to work the next day shows that her mind was still trying to grasp the realities of what was happening.
I'm not trying to argue with you since you did acknowledge that you don't blame her one bit for what she did. I just wish there were some better methods in place to catch these types of abuses so that it never has to get to the final protection of rights, namely, the knowledge of the holder.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a personal autonomy course would be a good idea.
Everyone needs actual lessons in saying "No" - No is a complete sentence.
I'd also require "The Gift of Fear" for everyone in this class to give people the confidence to trust their intuition and use fear for its proper purpose.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that she did in fact ask to be taken to the police station instead of being searched by her manager.
""I was bawling my eyes out and literally begging them to take me to the police station because I didn't do anything wrong," Ogborn said later in a deposition. "
For whatever reason, the manager decided to take her back and do it there instead.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Added: Well, that makes my less than favorable opinion of management drop even further.
Like I mentioned earlier, I think the whole power thing was a factor. Power is like an addictive substance that you know is bad, yet your mind craves it once you get a taste of having someone's entire life (for better or worse) in the palm of your hand. (reminds me of Being John Malkovich)
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not missing it.But she had already surrendered her clothes at that point, right? (Edit: i reread it, and it appears she had not surrendered her clothes. this confirms the analysis - at that point she should have left.)
If not, she should have just left.
As difficult as that it, that's what she should have done. Again, I'm not blaming her for not doing it.
But we need to figure out what we can do to help as many people as possible choose that course of action in this situation. And, of course, we can't just teach this situation. We're really trying to teach people how to preseve the integrity of their person and autonomy.
This must be taught, and it goes way beyond "question authority."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree that she should have pitched a fit and left. When it said that the assistant manager "led" her to the office, with another assistant manager accompanying, I'm wondering if perhaps they took her by the arm or used some intimidation tactics. But either way, it shows that she didn't just accept that this was okay. She "should have" stood up for her rights more forcefully, but they also should have listened to her and told the "police officer" on the phone to send a squad car to arrest her, as that was what she had chosen.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:but they also should have listened to her and told the "police officer" on the phone to send a squad car to arrest her,
Absolutely. No question.
Unfortunately, someone will always try to infringe on us. I'e seen firsthand our limitations as a society in punishing such behavior. I'd love to see more investment in preventing this behavior, and educating potential offenders is only half of what we can do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you. When it comes down to it, I firmly believe that I am responsible for protecting myself, and trusting in others to do it for me is a risk I don't care to take. I just worry that when we start talking about what she should have done it starts sounding an awful lot like blaming the victim, which is exactly what McDonald's is trying to do to get out of the lawsuit. (They said she went along with all of it willingly to "clear her good name" and could have walked out at any time. While she arguably could have walked out initially, I don't think anyone here is arguing she could have after she was locked naked in a room with a man 145 pounds heavier than her.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, McDonald's is toast in this. I'm assuming the managers worked for them (I'm not sure what would happen if it were a franchise situation). If so, they are responsible for everything the managers did.
If the managers are convicted, it's hard to see McD's having any way out of liability.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the same impression ElJay did -- that she was taken by the arm by someone older and larger than she was and "escorted" into the office. I don't think the manager would have let her just walk away.
Edit: and I'm sure she thought that since she hadn't done anything wrong nothing bad would happen to her. What did happen is so bizarre as to defy reason. With hindsight, yes she should have screamed and yelled and put up a fight. But how could she have know that at the time?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering about that -- there's the employee handbook saying it's never okay to strip search an employee, there was a memo sent out about prank calls, and there was a voice message sent out about prank calls, I don't remember when but I think it was right before this happened. Could that be enough to absolve them of responsibility? I mean, they could argue that the managers were acting on their own directly against all company policy. Is it their responsibility anyway? I don't know where that line is, if it exists at all.
Edit: Legally, I mean. As far as morally, I think they all have responsibility.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how could she have know that at the time?
That's why we need education. Do not go anywhere with a civilian attempting to escort you somewhere you don't want to go, with certain exceptions (store detectives have that authority in most states, and schools have some authority as well). Otherwise, just don't do it. This needs to be taught and made a meme, just as we've changed views on kids taking rides with strangers.
quote:there's the employee handbook saying it's never okay to strip search an employee, there was a memo sent out about prank calls, and there was a voice message sent out about prank calls, I don't remember when but I think it was right before this happened. Could that be enough to absolve them of responsibility?
I doubt it - not if her lawyer is at all competent.
Generally, employers are liable for the torts of their employees conducted in the course of their duties. This is called "respondet superior.
"Course of their duties" even applies to things done that are against company policies. I think this manager was on duty. She was certainly relying on her authority as manager, she was in the store. Slam dunk, I think. The other guy was brought in by the manager; I don't think the fact he doesn't work for McD's saves him.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do not go anywhere with a civilian attempting to escort you somewhere you don't want to go
This includes when your boss wants to speak to you in the office? I really just can't see an 18 year old putting up a fight when her manager wants her to go into the office for a chat. And at that time, she had no way of knowing it was anything else.
Edit: and it was a female manager- female employee situation as well. I could see a young woman being cautious about being alone with a male manager, but in this case I just don't see how she could have realized there was a problem until her options were already limited.
More edits: "trust your gut" or "trust your instincts" probably wouldn't have helped either -- the manager wouldn't have been giving off creepy signals because she had no creepy intent. The employee probably had reason to trust her based on previous interactions as well.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting two stories here. Either she was told she was about to be searched on orders of police - which is a situation we should teach about - or she was brought into the office as part of her employment and then told to strip.
Either way, she should have been taught to stop it before she was uncovered.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get that she was told she'd be searched until after she was locked in the office.
But I'm not going to read it again right now, so I would defer to anyone providing a quote to the contrary.
And I agree that even locked in she should have refused to take off her clothes. I just think it would have been a lot harder to get away at that point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:More edits: "trust your gut" or "trust your instincts" probably wouldn't have helped either -- the manager wouldn't have been giving off creepy signals because she had no creepy intent. The employee probably had reason to trust her based on previous interactions as well.
I'm not fond of "trust your gut" nor am I advocating it. Intuition is not trust your gut.
At some point before she exposed her underware, she intuited that something was wrong.
If we taught these types of things explicitly, she would know this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
