"The lawsuit alleges that the Apple employee approached the customers in an 'intimidating fashion,' invading their "personal space," and said to them, 'You know the deal. You know the deal.'"
This would be an odd reaction on the part of the Apple employees unless the two shoppers were recognized from a past encounter. The first words uttered were "You know the deal. You know the deal."
Couple that with the shoppers having the recorder at the ready, and one cannot eliminate the possibility that this whole encounter was indeed a setup.
"Having the recorder at the ready?"
Every one has a recorder at the ready stupid. Its called a smart phone. Every one has a voice recorder built-in, iOS, Android, Blackberry, WP7 and even "dumb phones".
"You know the deal. You know the deal".
Those words are very prejudicial. Its as if the Apple employee knew that these "kinds" of people were thrown out of "high class" stores all the time. And going by that assumption, the employees could have mentioned those statements.
These two facts alone do not refute or prove any prior encounters. There are just too much doubts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplesandOranges
Come on! No body gets treated like that in a Apple store! Apple is about as racial equal as can be.
Smells like a inside job. Investigate thouse Apple employees, security, supervisors and manager on duty. Do they know the plantiffs? Some body trying to hit up the Apple cash cow.
Emotional distress?! Dang, Grow some baseballs!
And Lawyers!!! Dang nabit, Makes me respect them a whole lot less! (A negative 2 on a scale of 1 to 10.)
There are still people with prejudicial or racial antagonistic thoughts. It can happen anywhere, anytime. Apple isn't an exception.
The ball is in Apple's court. Its for them to disprove of these allegations.
If a better-dressed black person comes in and you throw them out based on color, that's a different issue, but making that judgement based on prior problems doesn't automatically mean racial discrimination. If you don't want to be seen as a thug, don't dress like one - you're going to get that comparison if you do. Walk around in a Klan robe and people will judge you to be a racist, even if you just happen to like the fashion, right?
Prejudging doesn't make you a racist unless the judgement was specifically because of skin color - if 9/10 times (or 1/10 even?) someone dressed that way comes in, hangs out in an aisle, and then runs out of the store, you'd be an idiot NOT to make that judgement and either have security stand with them or ask them to leave.
On a related note, I actually saw a gangsta-dressed black guy running out of the Apple store near me as I walked in one time, and when I turned to the store worker near the entrance and said 'Really?', he told me it happens all the time, and that was usually people grabbing an armful of headphones.
So... I'm certainly not shocked to hear of something like this. And no, it wasn't the store in the story (D.C. area...)
When you think that one black guy in a hoodie is a criminal because another black guy in a hoodie runs out of the store with stolen merchandise, that is clearly racism. If you assign attributes to one member of a group based on the behavior of another member of the group, that's racism (or anti-semitism or sexism or whatever). Are all Jews cheap because one didn't leave a tip? Are all Irish drunks? Are all blondes dumb? Is every girl in a short skirt a whore?
If you want to have dress standards of admission, then hang a sign on the door and apply it to everyone regardless of gender or race.
Would it make sense to discriminate against all white kids who wear Abercrombie because another white kid wearing Abercrombie stole some iPods? Do you really think that white middle-class kids don't shoplift? Get real. Even rich white kids shoplift (Winona Ryder, Lindsay Lohan, etc.)
As others have posted, we don't know the facts. But IMO, some of the comments expressed here are from people who are clearly uncomfortable with minority men at best and are racist at worst.
Personally, I don't like hoodies or baggy pants and I especially don't like when underwear sticks out, but dressing obnoxiously doesn't make anyone a criminal. And for the record, NYC has the lowest rate of serious crime of any large city in the U.S.
In my own personal experience at Apple stores in NYC, I've never seen such treatment given anyone. And there are definitely people of all races working at the stores.
A few blocks away from that Broadway Apple store used to be a Tower Records store. Shoplifting was a problem there, but they never confronted anyone until they left the store. I saw them stopping a guy outside the door once who had about 20 DVDs under his long coat. After they took back all the DVDs they could find on him, they were still searching him and he complained, "That's all there is....what's the matter? DON'T YOU TRUST ME?" That really cracked me up. I didn't stick around to find out whether they called the police or let him go.
While not a sign of unlawful, wearing hooded sweatshirt and baggy pants are way to express their opposition to society, and do things their own way. If you dress like rebel and socially inapt and do your "things" and avoid any contact with personnel within a store, It sound only right for employee to "control" those people for public safety.
The article related only plaintiff side, why they don't just go in, bought their headphone and leave the store like any normal customer? I pretty sure none of this would happen. BTW who go to an Apple Store for buying headphone? Don't you know Best Buy, Amazon?
More than all most of the time, small minority group crying being racism victim out loud are generally racist them self, love to play that card and victimize them self.
i've come into the applestore thugged out and they treated me with the utmost. I really really doubt it. Money be green. Its a business. If they were looking suspect, this is america and people know that lawsuits happen over nothing so i really doubt it
Bypassing all this discussion of race for the moment, anyone notice how illiterate the attorneys for these guys are? On just one page, in just one paragraph, there are six errors!
Plaintiffs BRIAN JOHNSON and NILE CHARLES (herein after individually referred to as "JOHNSON" and "CHARLES, respectively, and collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") by there attorneys, AKIN & SMITH LLC, upon information and belief, as and for their Complaint, respectfully complain of the Defendant as follows:
These must be gangsta lawyers or something, because real attorneys would know:
[i] the difference between 'there attorneys' and 'their attorneys" - WOW! Graduate 3rd grade, anyone?
[ii] that "CHARLES, respectively should be "CHARLES," respectively
[iii] that 'Complaint' and 'Defendant' are not defined and therefore should not be capitalized
[iv] that they should be referred to as the "Plaintiffs" if we're using English
[v] not to complain redundantly about the complaint about which they're complaining, and
[vi] that people don't complain 'of' a Defendant, but rather 'about' a Defendant.
And I gotta wonder about #6 - That at all times material, Defendant APPLE INC. was and is a foreign business corporation duly existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. To the best of my knowledge, Apple is not a foreign corporation!
I wonder if the selection of this particular law firm denotes the seriousness of this lawsuit? Wouldn't someone against whom Apple egregiously discriminated hire competent counsel and not their brother's best friend's cousin's lawyer?
Color me skeptical, but I don?t see the racial element in the stated actions by the employee. From his supposedly stated comment it sounds like they have asked others to leave and/or have had problems with theft.
Then what is an excuse for discrimination? I can?t think of a scenario where prejudice isn?t the reason for discrimination.
<...>
Exactly.
One of the definitions is of discrimination is "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". Prejudice has "a preconceived judgement or opinion" as a primary definition on MW.
While there are certainly religious / racial / gender based forms of these, there seems to be an asinine play to make the entire concept out as always being wrong or unfair. The concept of being able to judge situations (or people) ahead of time based on other experiences is pretty basic - it may not be 'fair' for others being judged (whether you're wearing the baggy pants, Klan outfit, or bin Laden beard), but evolution rewarded people who could make judgements exactly like that.
He was doing what I did. Undercover LP. Even when I was 21-22, put me in jeans and a Harry Potter or whatever tee and I looked like a 14 year old. I worked bookstores, record stores, even an Apple store or two.
I do enough shopping at the stores that I've noticed the same guy or girl hanging out a lot. Easy money that person is a ULP. They look like they are goofing off on a computer, generally near the smaller items but they are paying attention. Sometimes if it's known that there is a chronic lifter or team in the area, they will purposefully put the same ULP in a store day after day as a set up. The team will figure out who that person is and wait for when they go on a break and walk out of the store. Unaware that there is a second ULP on duty as well, who catches them in the act with video to back it up for the courts.
That's bull. If you dress like a criminal do I have the right to handcuff you and lock you up? We live in a world of diverse fashions and everybody knows that. How should we treat someone who dresses like a pirate (ish), or god forbid, a 'prostitute'? Criminals don't 'dress like criminals', they usually dress like bankers. At least the really bad ones do. If you see someone wearing stripes, on the other hand, its much more serious I got to admit.
I think we need to remember that even though certain apparel is better for shoplifting that cultural fashion trends are not defined by this correlation. I bet most people defined as dressing "gangsta" would more accurately be categorized as dressing "angsta"
PS: I thought I saw two people in an Apple Store flashing gang signs to each other but it turns out they were using sign language.
I know someone who has a master's degree and dress in baggy clothing almost everyday, even at Church. Would you hire him? Or better question, will he hire you? You really can't judge people by how they look.
In business, how you dress in an interview is a big indicator how much you want the job and how professional you can be. You can wear whatever you like outside of work, but you need to be a professional if you want those jobs that actually make good money or have good perks. I ALWAYS look at how an applicant is dressed. It doesn't have to be a $1000 suit or anything, but are they dressed in a professional manner? Do they talk in a professional manner? (regardless of accent) I have hired many people of all races over the years and apply the same standards on everyone. Many of my team speak english as a second language as well. So what it all comes down to is can you dress/act professionally when needed? If you come to an interview in baggy or "trendy" clothes, then no matter if you have a doctorate I will send you packing.
I've been to that store. Do you guys have any idea how diverse it is in there at all times? There is every ethnicity on the planet walking through there daily, and I would go so far as to say often times caucasians are the minority.
If it was truly racism then there'd be no problem irrefutably establishing a pattern of racism.
IMO- this is bs. sorry- but I think a race card is being purposely played for a pay out, and it's a shame because it makes people take real racism less seriously because it gets lost in debates about clothing.
Apple is terrified of discrimination, they couldn't even get rid of obvious Chinese scalpers, I doubt they would deliberately eject black people because they were black.
Maybe their baggy pants were obscene. Maybe they were the kind of douches who wear their pants damn near hanging down on their knees, like a bunch of uncivilized retards. Maybe they were loud or speaking offensive language or they were doing something else which got them booted.
Not everything that happens to black people is because of racism. Maybe those two people who like to dress like thugs can call Obama and then we can have a beer summit and Obama can hold a press conference and say that Steve Jobs and Apple acted stupidly.
Black people and liberals or anybody for that matter who plays the race card are disgusting human beings, pure trash.
I have no idea what transpired at this particular Apple Store on that particular day (although it's worth noting that it was a particular Apple Store and a particular staff, so Apple's general policies aren't really much help sorting things out).
Given that, many of the responses and speculations in this thread (of which I have the entirety in front of me and which requires no speculation or assumptions) are appalling.
I've learned that any black man wearing a hoodie and baggy jeans is perforce a "thug" and has therefore surrendered his rights to go about his business unchallenged. Oddly, making the combination of race and clothing an actionable offense is stridently defended as having nothing to do with race. I guess if we just all agree that young urban black men are criminals until proven innocent (or until they upgrade their wardrobe) then there's nothing "racist" about it because it's just, you know, true and anyone that disagrees is "playing the race card."
I've learned that the real problem is that white people are occasionally importuned or embarrassed by black people accusing them of racism. I've learned that we live in a post racial society where any lingering prejudice against blacks is almost nothing compared to the horror white people being accused of racism, and this in a thread where there seems to be an almost unanimous opinion that young black men in hoodies and baggy pants entering the high temple of an Apple Store are very obviously shoplifters, thugs, criminals, gang members and con men, and if they go to the trouble of acquiring an attorney and bringing suit it's very obviously just a scam. It's the only possible explanation, you see, because white people are very clear on the fact that a certain style of dress is practically a prison tat.
Oh, and just as a side show, it turns out this is all somehow related to Obama's Justice Department, which is presumably coddling black criminals, on account of race loyalty.
But it's not racist to say so! It's just a fact! Like I say, I have no idea what happened at the store. For all I know these guys were actually serial shop lifters well know by the staff. But for all any of you know, they were graduate students at NYU looking to buy headphones. There isn't anything in the article that provides for any conclusion, yet the thread lurches into a braying chorus of condemnation of the litigants based on literally nothing more than than race and their clothing.
Oh, and the occasional belittling of anyone defending those litigants, because that would be jumping to conclusions.
Apple is terrified of discrimination, they couldn't even get rid of obvious Chinese scalpers, I doubt they would deliberately eject black people because they were black.
Maybe their baggy pants were obscene. Maybe they were the kind of douches who wear their pants damn near hanging down on their knees, like a bunch of uncivilized retards. Maybe they were loud or speaking offensive language or they were doing something else which got them booted.
Not everything that happens to black people is because of racism. Maybe those two people who like to dress like thugs can call Obama and then we can have a beer summit and Obama can hold a press conference and say that Steve Jobs and Apple acted stupidly.
Black people and liberals or anybody for that matter who plays the race card are disgusting human beings, pure trash.
I am not sure Apple is terrified of discrimination. By implication you are suggesting that were they not terrified they would discriminate by choice. But anyway, you aren't terrified, are you? You sound like a real cool stand-up guy.
There isn't anything in the article that provides for any conclusion, yet the thread lurches into a braying chorus of condemnation of the litigants based on literally nothing more than than race and their clothing.
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
I personally DON'T CARE what kind of clothes those "shopper" guys wore, as long they had some clothes on, and it was clean and thus didn't smell!
If they had tattoos all over their bodies, pierced eyelids, ears, nostrils, whatever... -- I recognize all that as their right of self expression! We all have our "scenes", heroes, generations, blah blah blah... Most of Apple Staff are pretty hip, and not too old, so they'll be able to see past all that "character dress up"... But...
If any of the above description fits the stereotypical profile of a "thug" who also acts suspiciously, plus cursing etc, and it all adds up to "looking for a fight", particularly if the same "shopper" is making a return appearance at the same store, then it's an OBVIOUS PROVOCATION! So, no matter how well Apple Staff is coached to "not to take the bait", we are all humans! If "the button" is pushed hard enough, the PROVOCATION will succeed!
The part about those "victims" • recording the conversation • hints at at a strong likelihood of INTENTIONAL PROVOCATION!!! Even if there are multiple cameras in all of Apple Stores, those cameras can't see everything, never mind record the audio of each interaction between the shopper and Apple Staff! The Shopper is playing the Game of Gotcha, Catch Me If You Can!
I strongly doubt that Apple Staff would kick a shopper out of the store based ONLY on the looks dress code, or race etc..., particularly in NYC, which is a very "colorful" place to begin with!
In this case, when it's an African American Shopper, there would likely be an additional "sensitivity" on the Apple Staff's part, particularly if the Staff is not black, but white, Asian etc....
This whole case is VERY SUSPICIONS...
Apple is "where the money is" and those 34 + 25 years old "victims" will try to get it, assisted by a lawyer whose "ethics" are odor-resistant! If this happened in a small mom's and pop's store, there would have been no case... Those guys would have probably be handled with physical force, maybe even baseball bats, never mind "colorful language"... The cops would have sympathized with the store, and the "victims" would look for a next Korean, or Chinese, or some other Immigrant owned store to PROVOKE.... But I don't want to get too stereotypical...
It's just sad to see that the $$ will be spent on lawyers instead of Research, or Charitable Donations... That money comes out of Apple's Profits, and thus effects AAPL Shareholders, but you all already know all that...
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
Only criminals were baggy clothing? If you don?t believe that then you can?t draw such a conclusion.
It wasn?t that long ago that we drew conclusions on intelligence based on the number of mustard seeds a cranium could hold. Can you not see the mismeasure of such a conclusion?
Comments
"The lawsuit alleges that the Apple employee approached the customers in an 'intimidating fashion,' invading their "personal space," and said to them, 'You know the deal. You know the deal.'"
This would be an odd reaction on the part of the Apple employees unless the two shoppers were recognized from a past encounter. The first words uttered were "You know the deal. You know the deal."
Couple that with the shoppers having the recorder at the ready, and one cannot eliminate the possibility that this whole encounter was indeed a setup.
"Having the recorder at the ready?"
Every one has a recorder at the ready stupid. Its called a smart phone. Every one has a voice recorder built-in, iOS, Android, Blackberry, WP7 and even "dumb phones".
"You know the deal. You know the deal".
Those words are very prejudicial. Its as if the Apple employee knew that these "kinds" of people were thrown out of "high class" stores all the time. And going by that assumption, the employees could have mentioned those statements.
These two facts alone do not refute or prove any prior encounters. There are just too much doubts.
Come on! No body gets treated like that in a Apple store! Apple is about as racial equal as can be.
Smells like a inside job. Investigate thouse Apple employees, security, supervisors and manager on duty. Do they know the plantiffs? Some body trying to hit up the Apple cash cow.
Emotional distress?! Dang, Grow some baseballs!
And Lawyers!!! Dang nabit, Makes me respect them a whole lot less! (A negative 2 on a scale of 1 to 10.)
There are still people with prejudicial or racial antagonistic thoughts. It can happen anywhere, anytime. Apple isn't an exception.
The ball is in Apple's court. Its for them to disprove of these allegations.
If a better-dressed black person comes in and you throw them out based on color, that's a different issue, but making that judgement based on prior problems doesn't automatically mean racial discrimination. If you don't want to be seen as a thug, don't dress like one - you're going to get that comparison if you do. Walk around in a Klan robe and people will judge you to be a racist, even if you just happen to like the fashion, right?
Prejudging doesn't make you a racist unless the judgement was specifically because of skin color - if 9/10 times (or 1/10 even?) someone dressed that way comes in, hangs out in an aisle, and then runs out of the store, you'd be an idiot NOT to make that judgement and either have security stand with them or ask them to leave.
On a related note, I actually saw a gangsta-dressed black guy running out of the Apple store near me as I walked in one time, and when I turned to the store worker near the entrance and said 'Really?', he told me it happens all the time, and that was usually people grabbing an armful of headphones.
So... I'm certainly not shocked to hear of something like this. And no, it wasn't the store in the story (D.C. area...)
When you think that one black guy in a hoodie is a criminal because another black guy in a hoodie runs out of the store with stolen merchandise, that is clearly racism. If you assign attributes to one member of a group based on the behavior of another member of the group, that's racism (or anti-semitism or sexism or whatever). Are all Jews cheap because one didn't leave a tip? Are all Irish drunks? Are all blondes dumb? Is every girl in a short skirt a whore?
If you want to have dress standards of admission, then hang a sign on the door and apply it to everyone regardless of gender or race.
Would it make sense to discriminate against all white kids who wear Abercrombie because another white kid wearing Abercrombie stole some iPods? Do you really think that white middle-class kids don't shoplift? Get real. Even rich white kids shoplift (Winona Ryder, Lindsay Lohan, etc.)
As others have posted, we don't know the facts. But IMO, some of the comments expressed here are from people who are clearly uncomfortable with minority men at best and are racist at worst.
Personally, I don't like hoodies or baggy pants and I especially don't like when underwear sticks out, but dressing obnoxiously doesn't make anyone a criminal. And for the record, NYC has the lowest rate of serious crime of any large city in the U.S.
In my own personal experience at Apple stores in NYC, I've never seen such treatment given anyone. And there are definitely people of all races working at the stores.
A few blocks away from that Broadway Apple store used to be a Tower Records store. Shoplifting was a problem there, but they never confronted anyone until they left the store. I saw them stopping a guy outside the door once who had about 20 DVDs under his long coat. After they took back all the DVDs they could find on him, they were still searching him and he complained, "That's all there is....what's the matter? DON'T YOU TRUST ME?" That really cracked me up. I didn't stick around to find out whether they called the police or let him go.
The article related only plaintiff side, why they don't just go in, bought their headphone and leave the store like any normal customer? I pretty sure none of this would happen. BTW who go to an Apple Store for buying headphone? Don't you know Best Buy, Amazon?
More than all most of the time, small minority group crying being racism victim out loud are generally racist them self, love to play that card and victimize them self.
Walk like a thug, talk like a thug and dress like a thug, you can't complain about the reception you get.
Do you think they would have been tossed if they were wearing an Armani suit?
Thank you
Plaintiffs BRIAN JOHNSON and NILE CHARLES (herein after individually referred to as "JOHNSON" and "CHARLES, respectively, and collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") by there attorneys, AKIN & SMITH LLC, upon information and belief, as and for their Complaint, respectfully complain of the Defendant as follows:
These must be gangsta lawyers or something, because real attorneys would know:
[i] the difference between 'there attorneys' and 'their attorneys" - WOW! Graduate 3rd grade, anyone?
[ii] that "CHARLES, respectively should be "CHARLES," respectively
[iii] that 'Complaint' and 'Defendant' are not defined and therefore should not be capitalized
[iv] that they should be referred to as the "Plaintiffs" if we're using English
[v] not to complain redundantly about the complaint about which they're complaining, and
[vi] that people don't complain 'of' a Defendant, but rather 'about' a Defendant.
And I gotta wonder about #6 - That at all times material, Defendant APPLE INC. was and is a foreign business corporation duly existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. To the best of my knowledge, Apple is not a foreign corporation!
I wonder if the selection of this particular law firm denotes the seriousness of this lawsuit? Wouldn't someone against whom Apple egregiously discriminated hire competent counsel and not their brother's best friend's cousin's lawyer?
Color me skeptical, but I don?t see the racial element in the stated actions by the employee. From his supposedly stated comment it sounds like they have asked others to leave and/or have had problems with theft.
Then what is an excuse for discrimination? I can?t think of a scenario where prejudice isn?t the reason for discrimination.
<...>
Exactly.
One of the definitions is of discrimination is "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". Prejudice has "a preconceived judgement or opinion" as a primary definition on MW.
While there are certainly religious / racial / gender based forms of these, there seems to be an asinine play to make the entire concept out as always being wrong or unfair. The concept of being able to judge situations (or people) ahead of time based on other experiences is pretty basic - it may not be 'fair' for others being judged (whether you're wearing the baggy pants, Klan outfit, or bin Laden beard), but evolution rewarded people who could make judgements exactly like that.
Around here, that kind of thing isn't noticed.
He was doing what I did. Undercover LP. Even when I was 21-22, put me in jeans and a Harry Potter or whatever tee and I looked like a 14 year old. I worked bookstores, record stores, even an Apple store or two.
I do enough shopping at the stores that I've noticed the same guy or girl hanging out a lot. Easy money that person is a ULP. They look like they are goofing off on a computer, generally near the smaller items but they are paying attention. Sometimes if it's known that there is a chronic lifter or team in the area, they will purposefully put the same ULP in a store day after day as a set up. The team will figure out who that person is and wait for when they go on a break and walk out of the store. Unaware that there is a second ULP on duty as well, who catches them in the act with video to back it up for the courts.
What's an LP -- I am unfamiliar with the term?
That's bull. If you dress like a criminal do I have the right to handcuff you and lock you up? We live in a world of diverse fashions and everybody knows that. How should we treat someone who dresses like a pirate (ish), or god forbid, a 'prostitute'? Criminals don't 'dress like criminals', they usually dress like bankers. At least the really bad ones do. If you see someone wearing stripes, on the other hand, its much more serious I got to admit.
VERY DANGEROUS MAN!
image: http://costume-discount.com/wp-conte...e0e4666665.jpg
SO VERY GANGSTA!I think we need to remember that even though certain apparel is better for shoplifting that cultural fashion trends are not defined by this correlation. I bet most people defined as dressing "gangsta" would more accurately be categorized as dressing "angsta"
PS: I thought I saw two people in an Apple Store flashing gang signs to each other but it turns out they were using sign language.
I know someone who has a master's degree and dress in baggy clothing almost everyday, even at Church. Would you hire him? Or better question, will he hire you? You really can't judge people by how they look.
In business, how you dress in an interview is a big indicator how much you want the job and how professional you can be. You can wear whatever you like outside of work, but you need to be a professional if you want those jobs that actually make good money or have good perks. I ALWAYS look at how an applicant is dressed. It doesn't have to be a $1000 suit or anything, but are they dressed in a professional manner? Do they talk in a professional manner? (regardless of accent) I have hired many people of all races over the years and apply the same standards on everyone. Many of my team speak english as a second language as well. So what it all comes down to is can you dress/act professionally when needed? If you come to an interview in baggy or "trendy" clothes, then no matter if you have a doctorate I will send you packing.
If it was truly racism then there'd be no problem irrefutably establishing a pattern of racism.
IMO- this is bs. sorry- but I think a race card is being purposely played for a pay out, and it's a shame because it makes people take real racism less seriously because it gets lost in debates about clothing.
@ IronTed
Which group of men is more likely to be asked to leave a store?
Unfair!
Should have included this!
And this!
Maybe their baggy pants were obscene. Maybe they were the kind of douches who wear their pants damn near hanging down on their knees, like a bunch of uncivilized retards. Maybe they were loud or speaking offensive language or they were doing something else which got them booted.
Not everything that happens to black people is because of racism. Maybe those two people who like to dress like thugs can call Obama and then we can have a beer summit and Obama can hold a press conference and say that Steve Jobs and Apple acted stupidly.
Black people and liberals or anybody for that matter who plays the race card are disgusting human beings, pure trash.
I have no idea what transpired at this particular Apple Store on that particular day (although it's worth noting that it was a particular Apple Store and a particular staff, so Apple's general policies aren't really much help sorting things out).
Given that, many of the responses and speculations in this thread (of which I have the entirety in front of me and which requires no speculation or assumptions) are appalling.
I've learned that any black man wearing a hoodie and baggy jeans is perforce a "thug" and has therefore surrendered his rights to go about his business unchallenged. Oddly, making the combination of race and clothing an actionable offense is stridently defended as having nothing to do with race. I guess if we just all agree that young urban black men are criminals until proven innocent (or until they upgrade their wardrobe) then there's nothing "racist" about it because it's just, you know, true and anyone that disagrees is "playing the race card."
I've learned that the real problem is that white people are occasionally importuned or embarrassed by black people accusing them of racism. I've learned that we live in a post racial society where any lingering prejudice against blacks is almost nothing compared to the horror white people being accused of racism, and this in a thread where there seems to be an almost unanimous opinion that young black men in hoodies and baggy pants entering the high temple of an Apple Store are very obviously shoplifters, thugs, criminals, gang members and con men, and if they go to the trouble of acquiring an attorney and bringing suit it's very obviously just a scam. It's the only possible explanation, you see, because white people are very clear on the fact that a certain style of dress is practically a prison tat.
Oh, and just as a side show, it turns out this is all somehow related to Obama's Justice Department, which is presumably coddling black criminals, on account of race loyalty.
But it's not racist to say so! It's just a fact! Like I say, I have no idea what happened at the store. For all I know these guys were actually serial shop lifters well know by the staff. But for all any of you know, they were graduate students at NYU looking to buy headphones. There isn't anything in the article that provides for any conclusion, yet the thread lurches into a braying chorus of condemnation of the litigants based on literally nothing more than than race and their clothing.
Oh, and the occasional belittling of anyone defending those litigants, because that would be jumping to conclusions.
Like I say, depressing.
Apple is terrified of discrimination, they couldn't even get rid of obvious Chinese scalpers, I doubt they would deliberately eject black people because they were black.
Maybe their baggy pants were obscene. Maybe they were the kind of douches who wear their pants damn near hanging down on their knees, like a bunch of uncivilized retards. Maybe they were loud or speaking offensive language or they were doing something else which got them booted.
Not everything that happens to black people is because of racism. Maybe those two people who like to dress like thugs can call Obama and then we can have a beer summit and Obama can hold a press conference and say that Steve Jobs and Apple acted stupidly.
Black people and liberals or anybody for that matter who plays the race card are disgusting human beings, pure trash.
I am not sure Apple is terrified of discrimination. By implication you are suggesting that were they not terrified they would discriminate by choice. But anyway, you aren't terrified, are you? You sound like a real cool stand-up guy.
There isn't anything in the article that provides for any conclusion, yet the thread lurches into a braying chorus of condemnation of the litigants based on literally nothing more than than race and their clothing.
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
I forgot to make the following points in my original Post, Part 1 - Shakedown, Extortion, Provocation!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...01#post1869701
EDIT, P.S.
I personally DON'T CARE what kind of clothes those "shopper" guys wore, as long they had some clothes on
If they had tattoos all over their bodies, pierced eyelids, ears, nostrils, whatever... -- I recognize all that as their right of self expression! We all have our "scenes", heroes, generations, blah blah blah... Most of Apple Staff are pretty hip, and not too old, so they'll be able to see past all that "character dress up"... But...
If any of the above description fits the stereotypical profile of a "thug" who also acts suspiciously, plus cursing etc, and it all adds up to "looking for a fight", particularly if the same "shopper" is making a return appearance at the same store, then it's an OBVIOUS PROVOCATION! So, no matter how well Apple Staff is coached to "not to take the bait", we are all humans! If "the button" is pushed hard enough, the PROVOCATION will succeed!
The part about those "victims" • recording the conversation • hints at at a strong likelihood of INTENTIONAL PROVOCATION!!! Even if there are multiple cameras in all of Apple Stores, those cameras can't see everything, never mind record the audio of each interaction between the shopper and Apple Staff! The Shopper is playing the Game of Gotcha, Catch Me If You Can!
I strongly doubt that Apple Staff would kick a shopper out of the store based ONLY on the looks dress code, or race etc..., particularly in NYC, which is a very "colorful" place to begin with!
In this case, when it's an African American Shopper, there would likely be an additional "sensitivity" on the Apple Staff's part, particularly if the Staff is not black, but white, Asian etc....
This whole case is VERY SUSPICIONS...
Apple is "where the money is" and those 34 + 25 years old "victims" will try to get it, assisted by a lawyer whose "ethics" are odor-resistant
It's just sad to see that the $$ will be spent on lawyers instead of Research, or Charitable Donations... That money comes out of Apple's Profits, and thus effects AAPL Shareholders, but you all already know all that...
Clothing is more than enough to draw conclusions about somebody. If somebody seeks to dress like a criminal, then nobody should be surprised if other people notice that too. The clothes (baggy, droopy pants etc.) have their roots and origins in prison culture.
Only criminals were baggy clothing? If you don?t believe that then you can?t draw such a conclusion.
It wasn?t that long ago that we drew conclusions on intelligence based on the number of mustard seeds a cranium could hold. Can you not see the mismeasure of such a conclusion?
Yea- they dress to steal billions