Wal-Mart probes racial comment at Gloucester County store

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100317/NEWS01/3170341/1006/rss01

Two black South Jersey women are boycotting Wal-Mart as authorities investigate a public announcement targeting black shoppers at the Turnersville store over the weekend.

Wal-Mart officials said they're reviewing security tapes to find out who asked "all black people" to leave the store in a message over the public-address system shortly before 7 p.m. Sunday.

Washington Township police, with the assistance of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, are investigating the episode as a possible bias crime, said Bernie Weisenfeld, spokesman for the prosecutor's office.

Ashley Hardie, a corporate spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, described the incident at the Route 42 store as "unacceptable to us and to our customers. We are currently reviewing our systems to prevent this from happening in the future," she said.

Barbara Pordy, chairwoman of the Gloucester County Human Relations Commission, has spoken with a store manager and is offering counseling to anyone who was troubled by the announcement.

The announcement was "unacceptable and appalling," Pordy said.

Her comments were echoed by the two shoppers who are taking their business elsewhere.

Patricia Covington and Shelia Ellington, both of Monroe, said they're too upset to shop at the discount chain after hearing a male voice calmly announce: "Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now."

The two women, who are friends, remember customers and store employees looking stunned.

Both women said they were glad they left their young children home on this trip because it saved them from explaining to them about race relations.

"In 2010, I want to know why such statements are being made because it flies in the face of what we teach them at home, and that's tolerance for people," said Ellington, 49.

She worked with other customers perturbed by the message to alert store management, township police and local media outlets. And at their request, a public apology was made Sunday evening over the public address system.

"I can't believe it in this day and age," said Covington, 49. "Wal-Mart needs to be more responsible."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Serves them right for being black and being in Gloucester county.

Washington Township police, with the assistance of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, are investigating the episode as a possible bias crime...

HAHAHA, what??? This doesn't sound remotely criminal.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The article is interesting as it seems more like a Wal-Mart hit piece than anything.

Some moron gets on the intercom and makes the announcement and they make it out to be all about Wal-Mart....

Also:

Washington Township police, with the assistance of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, are investigating the episode as a possible bias crime

How in the hell is this a crime? Someone made an announcement, whether it was serious or a joke, it's not a crime. Last time I checked people can have their opinions freely and say what they want. Other than 'feelings' maybe, no one was hurt.

Also this:

Barbara Pordy, chairwoman of the Gloucester County Human Relations Commission, has spoken with a store manager and is offering counseling to anyone who was troubled by the announcement.

If you are that disturbed from some ####### making a stupid announcement, you have bigger issues in your life. Counseling for this? Are you kidding me?

All in all, Wal-Mart is doing the right thing and trying to figure out who did it and they can fire the moron employee who did it, or make better certain that their offices are locked to keep people out.

They really are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one though otherwise....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How in the hell is this a crime?

Well, now that I think about it, it might be. Illegal use of Wal Mart equipment? But a hate crime, no.

[~Johnny~ 27]

Could have been an ex employee or any idiot that knows the intercom code on the phone system. And they have those phones on posts all their stores. I personally don't blame Wal Mart....even though they will likely get sued by those two gals for discrimination.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I found the correct paperwork for this heinous crime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are far worse "crimes" to be sure, but "free speech", isn't, has never been and will never be unlimited.

I guess these kinds of incidents are regarded in a similar light to the guy who shouts "fire" in the crowded theater.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There are far worse "crimes" to be sure, but "free speech", isn't, has never been and will never be unlimited.

I guess these kinds of incidents are regarded in a similar light to the guy who shouts "fire" in the crowded theater.

Except for the fact that they mention they are looking it as a 'bias' crime/aka. Hate crime.... completely a violation of free speech in that context.

Only thing that happened here was 2 people got offended...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Only thing that happened here was 2 people got offended...

More than 2, no doubt.

That said, I can't believe this is being looked at as a hate crime. If anything, it warrants private action by Wal Mart against the employee who did it or the employee who slacked off and allowed a non-employee to do it. That's about it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Serves them right for being black and being in Gloucester county.

So, what's the charge? BWIGC?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't disagree that this incident seems silly to warrant criminal investigation.

That said its easy to laugh at this, but that really only undermines the fact at racism is a thorny, complicated issue (and a very real one).

The question in cases of this type is whether the nature of the speech caused individuals to feel threatened by it. The difficulty is that these determinations are wholly subjective, but clearly it creates problems when you try to differentiate between cases like this and say, burning a cross outside a black family's home.

The specific nature of "law" makes it very difficult to contextualize these kinds of incidents.

It also illustrates the problems inherent in a zero tolerance approach to law enforcement.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I don't disagree that this incident seems silly to warrant criminal investigation.

That said its easy to laugh at this, but that really only undermines the fact at racism is a thorny, complicated issue (and a very real one).

The question in cases of this type is whether the nature of the speech caused individuals to feel threatened by it. The difficulty is that these determinations are wholly subjective, but clearly it creates problems when you try to differentiate between cases like this and say, burning a cross outside a black family's home.

The specific nature of "law" makes it very difficult to contextualize these kinds of incidents.

It also illustrates the problems inherent in a zero tolerance approach to law enforcement.

If this was done by an individual, and not an employee, there really is no lawsuit. If it was a deluded employee, they can sue for pain and suffering as a result of this humiliation. If it were an individual, they could sue him, but lets face the facts, if he was a former employee, or just some dumbass at walmart, what are you going to win, a double wide?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I say, there's no provision in the law to determine whether someone's "injury" is real, fake or exaggerated. That's why these cases go to trial - to determine just that.

If you assume at the outset that this and similar complaints are bogus and don't deserve a hearing (again as these determinations are subjective and not enshrined in law), then it creates all sorts of potential problems - not least that genuine complaints are brushed away. I doubt anyone would want that to happen.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

More than 2, no doubt.

That said, I can't believe this is being looked at as a hate crime. If anything, it warrants private action by Wal Mart against the employee who did it or the employee who slacked off and allowed a non-employee to do it. That's about it.

If you look on the internet you can find the codes to operate PA systems for various retail chains. Hijinx usually ensues.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's a crime in a sense of trespassing into a privately owned store. Even stores reserve the right to prosecute trespassers or uninvited guests. They can kick you out for making multiple returns of merchandise (essentially ban you).