Archived Target sued for death of young man.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's sad. I want to see the security footage to see what these assholes look like.

Edit: I just read the kid also had asperger's. I wonder if the "walk of shame" is something they do to all their employees or if it's something they did specifically to the kid. Either way, it's dumb.
 
Last edited:
A lot of things are not policy that Spot does. Hopefully as more details emerge it will become more clear as to exactly what happened.
 
dannyy315 said:
Edit: I just read the kid also had asperger's. I wonder if the "walk of shame" is something they do to all their employees or if it's something they did specifically to the kid. Either way, it's dumb.
Click to expand...
I think I've seen this. Cashier was handcuffed, walked to the TSC (which is in the front of the store by the lanes), then walked out also in handcuffs. Don't know if the person was charged though. I don't live anywhere remotely near Pasadena.
 
We had a etl/log years ago who said that IF any of us were caught stealing she would make sure they paraded us around the store in handcuffs. Has this story been picked up by the national news?
 
"According to the complaint, Graham Gentles arrived for work last July 15 and was immediately met by police and store security. At the direction of two members of the store management, he was handcuffed and led before other store employees to an office, the suit states."

I want to know who actually handcuffed him. Only once have I seen AP handcuff a TM for anything, and that was because he resisted. Much like why a guest would be cuffed. The police were not present until later in that situation.
 
The store where this happened is in the same district as mine! If this is true then what a shame. With his Asperger's he might have been difficult or have done something to piss off store leadership - it might have been one of those cases where they needed an excuse to let him go.
 
This article seems written in a biased view point. In my opinion, it seems as if it is written on the boys side. What I gathered from this is that they handcuffed him somewhere near the front and this "walk of shame" was not even that, it was just to get from point A(front of store) to point B(the office, which is most likely in the front as well). The police would not handcuff the individual if they did not feel it was necessary, and it sounded as if the police were involved the whole time. I could be wrong though, need more details.
 
The walk of shame is a thing but usually only for stealing and it's not official so they'll have a tough time proving that.

On the other hand , that he wasn't charged with anything makes the handcuffing a over the top.

Would like to see more info though.
 
They had to have at least probable cause to detain the subject and the handcuffs were most likely used because he either refused, resisted or was known to carry a knife/blade/any weapon. Not enough facts to judge
 
There is no such thing as a "walk of shame" we would only handcuff a guest or team member if they tried to fight or flee. The team member being disabled he was most likely confused and tried to flee or fight, I would cuff him too.
 
The article says the police were there the entire time. So I want to know who actually put the kid in handcuffs. I have a hard time believing that Target would do it with the police standing right there if the police didn't feel it necessary (and do it themselves). As for walking out in cuffs, well, that's what you do when you are under arrest. And whether or not charges are filed after that is up to the DA's office. Why isn't the police department involved in the lawsuit as well? They were the ones who decided to arrest her son and have him taken in (and later not charged). Unless they were given false information by the store, then they would be just as culpable.

I feel bad for this lady and her family. I really do. But based on this really biased article, I don't see any good reason for a lawsuit to be in her favor.
 
There's a few other less biased articles out there I've read. None really give much more information though. One did state that the police searched him under direction of store management. Another said there was a verbal altercation between the kid and another employee outside of work previously.
 
The police wouldn't just search someone because someone wearing red and khaki says to do it. Either they gave a reason to the police to make them believe there was a reason to be searched, or they had another reason for doing so. If they did it simply because someone says, "do it" they would also be open to a lawsuit.

Now...a few months back, we had a guest alert me to the fact a gentleman was curled up on the floor asleep in one of our aisles. So I called the LOD and ap over to deal with it. As I was doing this, the guest told me he was an off-duty cop from another town, and did we want his assistance in dealing with this guy. Well, of course I said yes, and asked him to wait until the LOD got there. So the LOD got there, the guest showed her and ap his badge, and we let him deal with the sleeping (turned out to be) gang member.

So the first thing the cop did after waking him up was frisk him while they were talking. I would assume this is standard protocol? Whatever, the cop kicked the guy out and we all went on with our day.

Anyway...so my question is....did the cop frisk the guy because that is SOP or did they do some other search based on some sort of lead they had? Or did they simply fall for the magical spell of a person dressed in red and khaki and do whatever they were told?

I really doubt the answer is the last one, as we are being lead to believe. But without more information, which will come out with discovery, and possibly a trial, all we can do is make guesses on our own biases.
 
^
Police frisks are usually sop when taking a suspect into custody (not necessarily arrest). Side note / I think the cop from the outside town in your post was reaching by getting involved. He really had no power to do that. If he would have found anything and tried to arrest any good attorney would have the search thrown out./

I doubt police would search because a red and khaki told them to. But nothing would surprise me.
 
AllThingsTarget101 said:
This article seems written in a biased view point. In my opinion, it seems as if it is written on the boys side. What I gathered from this is that they handcuffed him somewhere near the front and this "walk of shame" was not even that, it was just to get from point A(front of store) to point B(the office, which is most likely in the front as well). The police would not handcuff the individual if they did not feel it was necessary, and it sounded as if the police were involved the whole time. I could be wrong though, need more details.
Click to expand...

I agree, they're acting as if they made this kid go around the racetrack in handcuffs when it really looks like that's not the case.

Yeah something isn't right here, and I'm really thinking the mother's side is exaggerating a lot of this
 
I can understand them handcuffing someone they can simply claim the person was resisting or ready to run. They can always lie about that part to cover their butts & they can easily get witnesses to swear to that.... if the witnesses want to keep their jobs.

But do they really have police come to arrest someone for stealing & then no charges are filed against the person? Something doesn't add up here. It really does sound like someone had it in for the young man & wanted him gone.
 
Unless threats were made or he resisted when asked to come with leadership, there wouldn't be any reason to handcuff him.
Witnesses & surveillance video will certainly be able to back up what actually occurred.
The police took him in handcuffs yet he was released without being charged.
Theft accusation could've been the other TM's way of getting back at him.
Either way, another black eye for Target.
 
Vomitar said:
Wow, been at Target for over a year and this is the first I've heard of the Walk of Shame.
Click to expand...

It is officially not called that of course. In my years I have heard of 2 team members that were handcuffed by police and brought up front to the offices, fired for shoplifting which was tracked for some time. Why they decide to make it dramatic by having police handcuff these team members on the salesfloor then escort them to the offices, which happen to be 20ft or so away so other team members and guests see them, I will never know. They could easily call them to the offices or have them asked by another team member were police could wait there. Neither of the 2 team members were violent and actually well liked by other team members. The only reason I see for this is to either humiliate the accused or scare other team members. I wonder if any AP related members on here can tell us if this a Target policy or just up to each store?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

buliSBI
Gen X-Target vs Gen Z-Target
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
HardlinesFour
HardlinesFour
S
Assets Protection Fired from target for theft
Replies
14
Views
2K
can't touch this
can't touch this
P
Target raises its minimum wage.
Replies
8
Views
623
dannyy315
D
P
Boy in Target overnight
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
dannyy315
D
E
Your Target Work Experience
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Caliwest
C
Back
Top