posted
I do advocate "trust your gut." If something or someone is creeping you out, be cautious. I just don't think it would have worked here.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
True. I doubt the guy on the phone could have gotten them to use force at that point in the conversation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do advocate "trust your gut." If something or someone is creeping you out, be cautious. I just don't think it would have worked here.
I think we're using different names for the same thing. I strongly advocate the middle sentence of your post here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just kind of acting on a whim because it seems good.
Intuition I see as saying "Here's a situation." Generally, your conscious mind should decide what you do when you become aware of that situation.
The intuition might be ill-defined: "Something is not right here" or "Person X is dangerous." The decision to act is a choice of your mind, made based on the information you have. It might not be fully explainable, but it's a plan arrived at by the conscious mind.
To me, trusting your gut skips the second step.
I have no idea where I came up with this distinction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: 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.
Actually you'd need to have gone through special training on search proseigures, be authorized law enforment personel, be the same gender as the person being searched, and have either a warrant for the search, or probable cause.
Or just have the person's freely given consent.
Posts: 376 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you act on just the gut feeling. Just trust that if something seems wrong it very well might be.
You still have to question your prejudices though. To give the obvious example, if you're always nervous around black people it might have more to do with an unconscious prejudice than actual intuition.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very true about the prejudices. But on the other hand, prejudices can cause trouble the other way if a black person is actually tripping the intuitive alarm.
quote:I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong. At minimum, they had all the information to reach that conclusion.
I'm not sure I agree. The managers invovled all seemed to be low level management. These are people who are promoted from working the cash register to being in charge for the night shift. This level of management typically gets very little training. They certainly don't get phone messages or memos from national headquarters sent to them directly. Those messages are sent to The Manager, not these little guys.
I think that they certainly knew that physical and sexual abuse of the employees was wrong, but it didn't start that way. The caller started by asking the managers to detain the person, then to ask them to remove a jacket. I suspect that these managers could easily have believed it was within their rights to do these things, particularly when instructed to do so by the police.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, where can I pre-order that civics book.
Second, I agree with Rabbit. This guy on the phone was a master manipulater. I've taken sales courses that teach how to do what he did, but instead of ending up with some naked abused woman, you end up selling things people don't need. If you take it slow and easy, you can get away with murder.
If you say, "we are going to strip search you in this room then have you do perverted poses for a while" nobody would volunteer. But you say, "Bring them into the back office for a moment. Take their coat. Search it. Take her bag. Search it. Find any tampons? Birth control pills. They try to hide drugs in them. Set them somewhere in plain view so she knows she's in trouble." Of course now the girl is mortified. From there, bit by bit, one piece of clothes at a time, one bit of dignity at a time, they tear the people apart.
Third, doesn't this show how Abu-Graib could have happened a lot easier than we thought?
Finally, doesn't this show how suicide bombers are created? People who do not question authority are taken one step at a time until they find themselves standing at a restaurant with explosives around thier waist believing they have no options but to follow orders.
That is the secret to it all, remove options. That is the goal and the strategy. One by one, remove the options.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I agree. The managers invovled all seemed to be low level management.
Doesn't matter. If you have supervisory responsibilities of any kind, you should undergo management training and that should include what you are allowed to do and not do to employees.
Any company that doesn't adequately train its managers in basic employment law and worker's rights is only asking to be sued later.
*shakes head* My mom seriously needs to continue to build up her HR consulting business and I need to keep working with her - that's one of the things she does is come in and do basic management training. This is a perfect example of why such a thing is necessary.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right Belle, but what should happen and what does happen are not the same thing.
In my current faculty position, I have supervisory responsibility for a number of people. I've been through orientations that discussed sexual harassment but never have I been specifically told that I have no right to search my graduate students bags or pockets. I've never been told I can't detain or strip search people. I'm not sure if I have the right to search my students desks or not. In fact, none of these issues have been addressed in any of the jobs I've held.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that they certainly knew that physical and sexual abuse of the employees was wrong, but it didn't start that way. The caller started by asking the managers to detain the person, then to ask them to remove a jacket. I suspect that these managers could easily have believed it was within their rights to do these things, particularly when instructed to do so by the police.
I agree to an extent, but I think it's more than just the caller being manipulative by leading the managers step by step starting with requests that actually may have made sense.
Here's what I think.
I think the majority of the managers involved truly did want to do what was right, but when faced with requests that contradicted their own sense of morality and ethics, they convinced themselves that what they were doing was right and that they did indeed have the authority to do so.
For example, how could anyone possibly think that forcing the suspect to engage in a sexual act has anything to do with shoplifting? Why didn't Nix question the caller? I think it's because he already convinced himself into believing that the girl was a criminal and deserved what has happening to her. He forced himself to believe that the caller was a person of authority. He forced himself to believe that he now held the power to enforce the caller's requests. He forced himself to believe these things because he didn't want to believe that what he was doing was wrong. And once he forced himself to believe it, he no longer questioned it. It's amazing what people can make themselves believe if they truly want to believe something. No one wants to believe that they are capable of raping someone, so their minds create their own version of reality, one that their consciences can accept. A world that says that even though the strip search showed that the girl did not possess the stolen money, it's still okay to detain her and make further requests of her.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'm curious. Under what circumstances is it legal to strip-search someone? Innocent until proven guilty says the law-system. Is strip-searching someone treating them as though they are guilty?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily. I don't know the specifics of the law, but one example is airports. They have an incredible license to search people without any reference to guilt/innocence.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but technically you have a right to refuse. You can't get on the plane, then, of course. But it's still informed consent. You go to the airport knowing you will be searched.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a sign by the security checkpoint, I think. Also, even when they're just using a wand to search for metal, they always have a person of the same sex do the searching.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Shigosei. I hadn't thought of that.
bev - I think so, yes.
Still, the law doesn't require a guilty verdict in order to search a person. If an officer gets a warrant to search someone's house (or their body), that doesn't mean the person is guilty, it just means that the officer has presented some sort of reasonable justification that evidence pertinent to the case in question may be found.
I don't know what the requirements for a strip search would be. I suspect they would depend on the circumstances.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there isn't an officer of your gender at that checkpoint they can detain you until one arrives or (more likely if they'll be doing a strip search) take you somewhere else where there is one.
A couple pages back someone mentioned the us or them mentality that could also be a motivation for some of these managers. It reminded me of a quote from the book Catch-22 (an excellent book on abuse of power in general among other things).
quote: "What would they do to me," he asked in confidential tones," if I refused to fly them?" "We'd probably shoot you," ex-PFC Wintergreen replied. "WE?" Yossarian cried in surprise. "What do you mean WE? Since when are you on their side?" "If you're going to be shot, whose side do you expect me to be on?" ex-PFC Wintergreen retorted."
I'm appalled by this article, as I think anyone would be, but I can't help but wonder how I would have responded. I'd like to think that I don't feel confident enough in my personal authority to strip-search someone. I'd likely say, that the police could search her, it would be more professional that way, and it would be none of my implication. On the other hand, I can see the logic in checking their pockets before the police got there to be sure they didn't ditch the evidence. I'm just not sure how far I could be persuaded to go before my moral sense kicked in.
Even at the beginning of the article, I wasn't overly concerned, because even though the girl was strip-searched, and that clearly wasn't right, the manager was another woman, and she thought she was doing it to spare the girl an arrest and detainment at the police department. As someone who had never been in trouble before, the girl was probably eager to prove her innocence, was certain that it would be proven, and was eager to avoid any 'official' involvement, reasoning that if she proved she was innocent then, that the incident would pass, but that if she was taken into the PD, then it would go on her 'official' record. I know when I was younger I had an unhealthy fear of having an 'official' record, even though I had never done anything wrong.
I think the point at which I would have been extremely concerned, and stopped responding, was the point at which a non-employee, non-police officer, of the opposite gender was called in to take over. If back-up was necessary, I think a logical person would demand that it be a police officer, or at the very least it would make sense if it were another employee on duty, but to call someone else and involve them in the situation, and his agreement to join in, is just crazy. I also don't understand why they didn't give the girl's clothes back. If they had been searched and clearly didn't contain anything stolen, then there's no logical reason for her not to put them back on.
So I can understand, and might even be convinced myself (though I like to think I'd be smarter than that) to act as the manager did initially and search the girl, and detain her. I like to think that I would not have made her strip, or if I had that I would have given her her clothing back after it was clear that she wasn't hiding anything. And I definitely would have called the police before I called 'a friend' to 'help' with the situation.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I think is scary is the map showing 70 known cases of this hoax.
So even though it may take 10 attempts before finding a willing manager, there are still a lot of people out there that this hoax works on.
Could just this one person be responsible for all these? I doubt it, so does that mean there are multiple people behind these hoaxes?
Is this publicity going to spawn a bunch of copycat pranks? Restaurants and managers were warned before and yet it still happened. If even more people attempt this type of prank in the future, will the results be any different?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit concerned that there will be a rash of copy cat crimes now that this has hit the news.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 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.
It’s very difficult to argue with an authority figure when you aren’t sure of your standing. If you’re wrong, you end up in a lot more trouble. Another experience I had was riding with a friend in an older, not so nice, POS car. We got pulled over and had done nothing wrong that I knew. The Officer asked everyone for his or her driver’s license. At the time my (hehe) contrary nature flared and I asked what was the reason for pulling us over. My knowledge of law isn’t extensive, but I believed he was required to tell us. (I also thought that the signs about construction zones meant to reduce speed when workers are present. It doesn’t. It means fines double when workers present, reduced speed is all the time.) But to call the bluff against someone in authority without good knowledge is difficult and sometimes dangerous. Everyone in the car yelled at me to just give him my DL. So I did. It’s a bit different than being strip searched, but the same “go along or it will be worse” thought is there.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 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.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: [QUOTE] Any company that doesn't adequately train its managers in basic employment law and worker's rights is only asking to be sued later.
I don’t agree with McDonalds being responsible. In the eyes of the law they may be, but outside the technical nitty gritty are they? There is only so much you can do to insure that someone doesn’t do something bad. If they have made a reasonable effort then what else can be done? It seems to me it is assigning the responsibility to a corporation that should be a personal responsibility. It’s a tendency we have with the government also. Somebody else is given the responsibility so we don’t have it, and if something bad happens then it’s his or her fault. Does anyone have a means of controlling adults to the degree they can not do anything wrong? It should be a balance between the corporation providing the means and the person following the guidelines. Acting on the guidelines comes down to the person. I’ve been fortunate to do some traveling and usually I find the laws not so enabling. If you take the safety off the fan in your car and get hurt, well you shouldn’t have taken the safety off unless you knew what you were doing. It seems we have the idea that someone should stop us from doing anything unintelligent.
I think there’s no question that there will be copy cat crimes. But as it hits the media people become aware of it. How many old people have been scammed out of their savings by Cons? How many email do each of you get a day that are phishing? Have you ever received the letter (real letters) about the guy who has a ga-billion dollars and just needs your help to get it done, so give him your bank info? Scams and Cons have always been there. This is just a sick one. I have found some of the online games etc. to be an amazing thing. If you want to see the true nature of people, give them an almost perfect mask and turn them lose. Some players are so noble and kind it’s enough to bring a tear to your eye, and others are so heinous and cruel you have to question if they are demon possessed. There is a term that has come to describe some of it ‘griefer’. The caller is a griefer outside the game.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Everybody look at that link.. It's important stuff! The situations dealt with are different than what's in the video, but if the people in that article knew about it, there's a higher chance they would have known what was going on was wrong. And they could have said NO.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only skimmed this article, but I wonder why anybody would search the victim themselves. How could you be sure you were doing it right? I can understand telling the victim that the two of you have to go to the police station or wait there for the police to arrive, but...
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the link. It looks informative. I don’t feel any regret with the incident, and in hindsight have to say it’s a hard position for him also. If he says he pulled us over because it’s a nice area and we looked like ...erm… undesirables then someone will try to sue or complain. So he tries to do it with giving us something to screw him with. I understand why he pulled us over and don’t begrudge him that, even though it erked me at the time. If prevention is part of his job, then he was trying to prevent something. I think it’s a bit hypocritical to want an officer to prevent people robbing and then be pissed about preventative actions.
Dagonee
I’m not sure how you would teach someone to do this. I think you can give them specific knowledge about a situation, but how do you teach what seems to be common sense? I still believe that life has become more complicated than everyone can deal with. Figuring out taxes and laws and jobs and all the other complications, do they have the time, interest, or capacity to learn it? I don’t know what the law is about the strip search. I don’t have specific knowledge but I can interpolate from what I do know and say, “Hmmm methinks something be a wee bit odd.” I applaud the efforts to teach people, and help them understand, but is it practical and does it work? They had an employee manual that specifically said this was not acceptable and none of them used that.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think it could be taught, and I think it could be taught in a way that helps a great many people.
Knowing the right, instead of just knowing a little about it, would help.
As would teaching people how to assert themselves. Many times, people don't agree, but they also don't disagree. So they just kind of ride along with what's happening.
Simply teaching people how to stop the ride would be a huge help. And it can be taught.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't refuse searches because you have anything to hide (although that is also a good reason), but because it is your constitutional RIGHT to refuse searches. I will always refuse searches, no matter what. I won't physically resist, but I will make my verbal refusal very clear.
You don't have to give up your rights just because you respect that the cop is trying to prevent crime or catch people who are committing crimes. And you shouldn't.
If the people in that article had seen the video that you can get from that website, I guarantee that if they were listening at all, they would have been able to determine that things were very wrong with that caller--even though it didn't address searches at work specifically.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
How would you teach them? I haven’t really searched but there are things available such as the link Katarain provided. How do you get them to avail themselves of it?
Katarain
Hide? Surely I must seem pure as water from deep under ground that really good beer could be made from. I have mixed feelings on the exercise. If it is something that bothers me enough I would certainly do it. I also think that not exercising it can tend it to be ignored. But part of me still question whether it makes things better or worse. Individual rights vs. better ?safety? You could have a ‘perfectly’ safe society if no one had any rights. A tough balance.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Remember the book "The Wave"??? It was a awsome book and it reminds me of this situation.
IP: Logged |
quote:How would you teach them? I haven’t really searched but there are things available such as the link Katarain provided. How do you get them to avail themselves of it?
I don't know. I'm pretty sure there's no curriculum available right now.
For sure, you teach practical applications of rights. Who can search you when, and who you can resist.
For the rest, it would be some form of assertiveness training.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also think that not exercising it can tend it to be ignored. But part of me still question whether it makes things better or worse. Individual rights vs. better ?safety? You could have a ‘perfectly’ safe society if no one had any rights. A tough balance.
I am 100% of the belief that it is BETTER to have individual rights protected over better safety. I don't buy into this idea that it's okay to give up our freedoms because we're afraid of terrorism, for instance. I don't believe we need the government to take care of us that badly. I like our warrant system very much.
So yes, I think it is our duty to exercise our rights--ESPECIALLY when we haven't done anything wrong. Refusing to give up our rights is our way to indicate that we do not agree with them being taken away (re: the patriot act). That way lies a police state. Law-abiding citizens need to exercise their rights especially because this notion that only a criminal would refuse a search and if you don't have anything to hide you should just submit is a false one. Guilt can NOT be automatically assumed by our refusal.
Refusing doesn't mean a less-safe society anyway. If the police officer has probable cause he has the right to search (am I right?). Random searches because you look funny/scary/foreign/young/whatever are not his legal right--and you don't have to--and shouldn't have to submit.
In my opinion, refusing to be searched makes things better, or at the very least helps to keep them from getting worse.
The way things are going now, people are so scared they forget how important it is to protect their rights and consequently submit to all sorts of violations of privacy. I'm scared that one day we won't have any rights left. And those of us who refuse to go along with it will end up jailed or worse. Perhaps I'm an alarmist.
Edit: to clear up weird and confusing grammar. Still have some odd spots, I think...
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it would be great if you could get people to go and learn.
My goal would be to make it part of a civics class.
Each time a citizen exercises a right in an appropriate manner, the effect is beneficial for other citizens, not just the citizen.
Sometimes the benefit might not outweigh the benefit of voluntarily ceding that right in that situation. For example, I would probably let police officers come through my house if they were looking for a fugitive. But I wouldn't be likely to consent to police searching my car after they pulled me over, even though I had nothing to hide.
The reason the mere exercise of rights is beneficial is because it underscores the seriousness of these issues to government authority. It helps them not take it for granted and may help, over time and in the aggregate, reduce the number of attempts to circumvent those rights.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I agree with what you’ve said. I tend to be an individualist and find it restrictive when laws are made for the lowest common denominators and when I’m treated like one. If faced with a choice I would have to choose as you’ve said. I’m something of an idealist and a realist, a hopeful pessimist? I want to believe that all policeman are good and kind and have our best interest in mind, but I’ve seen to many examples to believe it. And given that it is not an ideal world then protecting your individual rights becomes a necessity, or just like you said, people after power and control would take as much as people would allow them. Sometimes I just imagine what we could do as a race if we could cooperate without worrying about the next guy taking more or doing something screwy. I’m curious, what have you developed your opinion from?
Dagonee
quote: The reason the mere exercise of rights is beneficial is because it underscores the seriousness of these issues to government authority. It helps them not take it for granted and may help, over time and in the aggregate, reduce the number of attempts to circumvent those rights.
This is also a good point. I think the basis of what you say is valid. I still don’t think you would get people to go to the class. Maybe if it was a class in high school or something. The only negative thing I see in it is the people who think it entitles them to do something wrong. People tend to do what they feel they can get away with. Would this make them think they can get away with more?
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened to my post? I typed out a long post and poof its gone.
I disagree with the poster above who suggested that Nix didn't want to do what he did. I think he absolutely wanted to do what he did. He walked in, found a nude teenage girl and a voice on the phone making evil suggestions. I think he wanted to do and figured it was as good a time as any. The second man that was called in was faced with the exact same situation - a nude teenage girl- and he refused to participate. Nix should have refused, heck his then girlfriend should have refused once it came to the poor girl removing the last layers of her clothing.
This thing really frightens me. What has happened to common sense? What has happened to our sense of right and wrong? I think many of these people didn't care if it was right or wrong, specifically when the caller was asking them to have the victim preform sexual acts etc. That so clearly crosses the line it sickens me that people continued to go along with it. I feel so much for the victims, the real victims. Those on the phone with the caller stopped being victims when the crossed the line between decency and sexual abuse. I am really frightened that people in our country have become so debased and desensitized that they no longer know where the line of right and wrong is.
Now I need to go watch SpongeBob or something to get this horrible story out of my mind.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am really frightened that people in our country have become so debased and desensitized that they no longer know where the line of right and wrong is
What frightens me is that I do think people know where the basic line of right and wrong is, they just find a way to justify doing what they know is wrong.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty amazing how irresponsible McDonalds comes across as in the article.
It takes serious arrogance and nerve to accuse the victim of "not leaving the office naked" and of "not screaming" while she's being molested.
This reminds me of that ridiculous lawsuit a couple of years ago, where some fool spilled hot coffee on her lap and sued McD's for millions. I read that the jury also thought the suit was ridiculous. Then the lawyers for McDonalds stupidly pointed out that out of millions of coffees served only a few thousand people received third degree burns.
posted
I think deep down inside the managers who participated in the degrading searches really did enjoy doing them. We all have ugly impulses and sometimes they just need an excuse to come out and play.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only distinction between the power wielded by "Office Scott" and the power wielded by a "legitimate" authority figure is that the legit figure can ultimately use force or violence with the sanction of society.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
