Family Dollar Stores Face Scrutiny For Asking Customers To Remove Hoodies

[mick silver]

Family Dollar Stores Face Scrutiny For Asking Customers To Remove Hoodieshttp://l.yimg.com/os/152/2011/12/12/Daily-Caller-158by27_174921.png (http://www.dailycaller.com/) 2 hours ago




View photo
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/KznhAD_I2BYLvVNO03juUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTE1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/YouTube-screenshot-Domenic-Mowrey-KMOV-screenshot.jpgFamily Dollar Stores Face Scrutiny For Asking Customers To Remove Hoodies

Some Family Dollar stores in the St. Louis area have been experimenting with signs asking customers to take off their hoodies before they enter the stores.
The signs read: “All Customers: Please remove hoods before entering Family Dollar,” according to local CBS affiliate KMOV. (http://www.kmov.com/news/editors-pick/Local-Family-Dollar-locations-ban-hoods-inside-store-287179041.html)
Managers at Family Dollar stores would not reveal the reasoning for the signs. However, the signs seem likely to be a response to an outbreak of shoplifting and armed robbery at St. Louis-area Family Dollar stores.
For example, a man allegedly held an employee at a gunpoint during a recent robbery at a Family Dollar store on South Jefferson in St. Louis.
At another area store — the location on South Grand — someone started shooting a gun.
Some customers think the hoodie ban in discriminatory.
“I would call it discrimination. That’s not right,” Family Dollar shopper Roger Williams told KMOV. “It shouldn’t matter that you’re going in there with your hood on. If you’re not stealing, and you’re buying, purchasing something, what’s the problem?”
Other customers were more supportive of the anti-hoodie signage.
“They want people’s faces to be seen by the cameras,” St. Louis resident Kusloshiai Webb suggested to a KMOV reporter. “And sometimes when you have on a hood, it might block your facial view.”
Bigwigs at the Family Dollar headquarters said they would conduct an internal company investigation after they found out about the signs.
“It is not company policy to ask our customers to remove hoods or sweatshirts before entering our stores,” company spokesman Bryn R. Winburn informed the CBS station.
One St. Louis-area Family Dollar store, at 2700 S. Grand, already removed its sign last week.
Family Dollar is a chain of discount variety stores with 8,100 stores in several states across the country. Most of the stores are located in low-income neighborhoods.
This summer, Dollar Tree, Inc. agreed to purchase Family Dollar Stores Inc. for $8.5 billion in an effort to compete more effectively with rivals Dollar General Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The deal hasn’t been finalized.
If shareholders refuse to back the deal, it could lead to a hostile $9.1 billion takeover bid from Dollar General.
Follow Eric on Twitter (https://twitter.com/ericowensdc). Like Eric on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/EricOwensDC). Send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com (erico@dailycaller.com).
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/family-dollar-stores-face-scrutiny-for-asking-customers-to-remove-hoodies/#disqus_thread)
Read more stories from The Daily Caller
Family Dollar Stores Face Scrutiny For Asking Customers To Remove Hoodies (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/family-dollar-stores-face-scrutiny-for-asking-customers-to-remove-hoodies/)



Family Dollar


Click to view comments 
View Comments (210)

[Spectrism]

With facial recognition software, the devil will be able to have his minions track you everywhere. Cars will be tracked by street cameras with plate identification as well as spotting drivers & occupants with facial recognition. Stores and foot traffic will be monitored by cameras to keep real time tabs on where you are and what you are doing.

They will call resistors paranoid when it is the government that is acting totally paranoid.

[madfranks]

Managers at Family Dollar stores would not reveal the reasoning for the signs

Only a retard couldn't figure this out.

[Dogman]

Face the cameras please!

[Hitch]

Black hoodies are what they call part of the 'uniform' on the street. Criminals intentionally wear them because if they all look the same, they are very hard to identify. If you have 10 guys, all wearing blue jeans, with dreadlocks, and black hoodies, which one committed the crime?

[EE_]

Biometric identification is becoming a huge problem that needs to be addressed.
I believe every person should have the right to privacy.
Hiding your face should not be a crime...only the act of committing a crime is a crime.
For the same reason facial recognition cameras are legally innodating our society, you should be able to legally evade them.
Why should anyone have the right to know where you are, or have gone, every minute of your life?

[madfranks]

Hiding your face should not be a crime...only the act of committing a crime is a crime.

If the owner of private property makes it policy that hoodies aren't allowed, I believe they have every right to make such rules. How is that any different than "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs?

[EE_]

If the owner of private property makes it policy that hoodies aren't allowed, I believe they have every right to make such rules. How is that any different than "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs?

I agree 100% Sorry, I was refering to the ban on hoodies.

The solution is not to ban hoodies, the solution is a better armed public.
Dead criminals is the best solution.

I wouldn't let anyone on my property that I couldn't see their face.

[EE_]

I agree 100% Sorry, I was refering to the ban on hoodies.
The solution is not to ban hoodies, the solution is a better armed public.
I wouldn't let anyone on my property that I couldn't see their face.

Maybe private owners of stores and places of business should be required to post a sign saying they are using biometric facial identification on these premisis for the use of the federal government database?

[crimethink]

My credit union tried this last year, along with prohibiting hats and sunglasses. Staff claimed it was "for our protection, since several credit unions have been robbed recently." I ignored the "policy," since I almost always wear a brimmed hat, and made a huge fuss to the administration. The policy was rescinded within two weeks.

[crimethink]

Biometric identification is becoming a huge problem that needs to be addressed.
I believe every person should have the right to privacy.
Hiding your face should not be a crime...only the act of committing a crime is a crime.
For the same reason facial recognition cameras are legally innodating our society, you should be able to legally evade them.
Why should anyone have the right to know where you are, or have gone, every minute of your life?

The criminal cult known as lawyers (i.e., "judges") claim you have "no right to privacy in public areas."

[crimethink]

If the owner of private property makes it policy that hoodies aren't allowed, I believe they have every right to make such rules. How is that any different than "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs?

Individually-held private property, yes, corporately-held property, no.

Want human rights? Be a sole proprietor with full personal liability.

This is just another aspect of a Police State under the guise of "private property rights."

[Shami-Amourae]

Who doesn't want to be enriched?

http://s28.postimg.org/ipoiloqtp/blacks2ira.jpg

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/thumb/a/a6/Multi_culturalism.jpg/800px-Multi_culturalism.jpg

[madfranks]

The criminal cult known as lawyers (i.e., "judges") claim you have "no right to privacy in public areas."

Just curious, why do you think you have a right to privacy outside your private property?

[Hitch]

Just curious, why do you think you have a right to privacy outside your private property?

The 4th amendment, search and seizure law, to start. We do and should have privacy outside in public, it's a basic human right.

There's a culture shift away from this however, sadly.

[Publico]

25 years back I did extensive legal research and as I recall it's illegal at common law to go about on the public highways in disguise. I'd have to spend some time at the law library to find the source of that knowledge.

[crimethink]

Just curious, why do you think you have a right to privacy outside your private property?

Human beings have the right not to be searched, not to have their possessions searched, and not be mass surveilled while going peaceably about their business.

If that is denied, then one has a Police State. Oh, wait, we do!

[crimethink]

25 years back I did extensive legal research and as I recall it's illegal at common law to go about on the public highways in disguise. I'd have to spend some time at the law library to find the source of that knowledge.

That would be so-called "case law" or statutory "law" ("judge"/lawyer made-up bullshit), not natural law (true common law). Purely malum prohibitum.

"Disguises must be prohibited because someone might use one for highway robbery" is the same "logic" as "high-capacity 'clips' (magazines) must be prohibited because someone might use them for a mass murder."

[Hitch]

Human beings have the right not to be searched, not to have their possessions searched, and not be mass surveilled while going peaceably about their business.

If that is denied, then one has a Police State. Oh, wait, we do!

I think we are reaching an unprecedented time, where we need our Constitution the most, in history, since inception/ratification. Yet....It's being challenged by .gov, technology, the media, and our culture itself.

We need to keep it alive.

[crimethink]

I think we are reaching an unprecedented time, where we need our Constitution the most, in history, since inception/ratification. Yet....It's being challenged by .gov, technology, the media, and our culture itself.

We need to keep it alive.

We're going to lose. The technology will never be kept in check.

[Hitch]

We're going to lose. The technology will never be kept in check.

A culture change would keep technology in check.

The chances of that happening, probably next to nothing though.

[madfranks]

Human beings have the right not to be searched, not to have their possessions searched, and not be mass surveilled while going peaceably about their business.

If that is denied, then one has a Police State. Oh, wait, we do!

Is that how you define privacy? Then I agree. However, if you define privacy the way Webster does, "the quality or state of being apart from company or observation", then no, the 4th amendment does not guarantee you privacy.

Here's a good article on the "right" to privacy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/walter-e-block/there-is-no-right-to-privacy/

[crimethink]

A culture change would keep technology in check.

The chances of that happening, probably next to nothing though.

Exactly. I always take into account the possible, but focus on the probable.

[crimethink]

Is that how you define privacy? Then I agree. However, if you define privacy the way Webster does, "the quality or state of being apart from company or observation", then no, the 4th amendment does not guarantee you privacy.

Here's a good article on the "right" to privacy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/walter-e-block/there-is-no-right-to-privacy/

That article is by a Jew, citing a Jew. As such, it is no surprise it's sophistry.

A peeping Tom watching your daughter dressing or bathing with a telescope from his own dwelling? No right to not be free of that, because "property rights" are not violated? You can't own the photons emanating from your property, so it's "alright"? "She should have pulled a curtain." I say, bullshit. It's a matter of honor not to trespass against one's fellow man (or woman), but "property rights" cannot address honor & human decency.

The Jewish materialists wish to reduce everything to "property," but, in reality, humans are born with rights, from God, and not because they are "property of themselves." In fact, humans are not property of themselves, but of their Manufacturer. He graciously allows us use of our bodies and souls to do as we wish, with the hope we will follow His design. All human problems are because we refuse to follow that Design. "Libertarianism" and misnamed "Austrian" (Jewish) economics attempt to evade that, with the aim of introducing anti-God materialism into Goyish permissible "thought" as an alternative to Marxism.

Merriam-Webster, the only authentic "Webster's" dictionary, has multiple definitions. This is the correct one in our context:

1 b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one's right to privacy>

[Hitch]

That article is by a Jew, citing a Jew. As such, it is no surprise it's sophistry.

A peeping Tom watching your daughter dressing or bathing with a telescope from his own dwelling? No right to not be free of that, because "property rights" are not violated? You can't own the photons emanating from your property, so it's "alright"? "She should have pulled a curtain." I say, bullshit. It's a matter of honor not to trespass against one's fellow man (or woman), but "property rights" cannot address honor & human decency.

The Jewish materialists wish to reduce everything to "property," but, in reality, humans are born with rights, from God, and not because they are "property of themselves." In fact, humans are not property of themselves, but of their Manufacturer. He graciously allows us use of our bodies and souls to do as we wish, with the hope we will follow His design. All human problems are because we refuse to follow that Design. "Libertarianism" and misnamed "Austrian" (Jewish) economics attempt to evade that, with the aim of introducing anti-God materialism into Goyish permissible "thought" as an alternative to Marxism.

Merriam-Webster, the only authentic "Webster's" dictionary, has multiple definitions. This is the correct one in our context:

1 b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one's right to privacy>

This post is a grand slam.

If people, humanity, really understand what you are saying Crimethink, the world would be a better place.

[Glass]

victim payouts make all crimes better. Everyone can be bought off.

[madfranks]

That article is by a Jew, citing a Jew. As such, it is no surprise it's sophistry.

A peeping Tom watching your daughter dressing or bathing with a telescope from his own dwelling? No right to not be free of that, because "property rights" are not violated? You can't own the photons emanating from your property, so it's "alright"? "She should have pulled a curtain." I say, bullshit. It's a matter of honor not to trespass against one's fellow man (or woman), but "property rights" cannot address honor & human decency.

The Jewish materialists wish to reduce everything to "property," but, in reality, humans are born with rights, from God, and not because they are "property of themselves." In fact, humans are not property of themselves, but of their Manufacturer. He graciously allows us use of our bodies and souls to do as we wish, with the hope we will follow His design. All human problems are because we refuse to follow that Design. "Libertarianism" and misnamed "Austrian" (Jewish) economics attempt to evade that, with the aim of introducing anti-God materialism into Goyish permissible "thought" as an alternative to Marxism.

Merriam-Webster, the only authentic "Webster's" dictionary, has multiple definitions. This is the correct one in our context:

1 b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one's right to privacy>

You said a lot in this post, and I want to respond to a lot of it.

First off, I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying here. I am simply trying to make sure we're all using the correct definition of privacy here. You pulled a different definition to illustrate your point, "freedom from unauthorized intrusion". I agree 100% with that, that nobody has the right to intrude, unauthorized, into your business. But you completely skipped over the definition I used, which I used simply to illustrate what most people think privacy is, "the quality or state of being apart from company or observation". When people ask for privacy, that's what they mean most of the time. But, nobody has such a "right" outside of their own property. You do not have the right to go into someone else's home, store, business, street or roadway and demand that they leave you alone. Per the article I quoted, such a demand is a so-called positive right, that is, requiring others to act or behave in a way that suits you, instead of leaving them alone.

And yes, I agree the peeping tom is morally wrong, and a man should not do such things, but in the world we live in, men choose to do lots of evil things. But as you say, it's a matter of honor, so as such, can the fix be legislated? Can you legislate honor into the hearts of evil men? I don't think you can, which to me illustrates the limits of modern "lawmaking", which thinks everything can be fixed if the right laws are passed.

[crimethink]

But you completely skipped over the definition I used, which I used simply to illustrate what most people think privacy is, "the quality or state of being apart from company or observation". When people ask for privacy, that's what they mean most of the time.


I skipped it because I considered it irrelevant to the discussion. I disagree that "seclusion" is what people mean by "privacy" most of the time. One of my graduate classes was specifically on secrecy & privacy.



You do not have the right to go into someone else's home, store, business, street or roadway and demand that they leave you alone.


Why not? We become slaves of someone else when one ventures outside one's home? I say BS to that!

You're OK with being harassed repeatedly simply for going about one's peaceable business?



Per the article I quoted, such a demand is a so-called positive right, that is, requiring others to act or behave in a way that suits you, instead of leaving them alone.

I don't accept Jewish materialistic "Libertarianism" as valid, so the article doesn't speak to me.

A healthy civilization does indeed expect people to act or behave in a way that respects others. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I realize that the Jewish "Libertarian" line is that "I own this and can do whatever the f**k I want with it in any way I wish regardless of how shitty it may be." I utterly reject that, of course.




And yes, I agree the peeping tom is morally wrong, and a man should not do such things, but in the world we live in, men choose to do lots of evil things. But as you say, it's a matter of honor, so as such, can the fix be legislated? Can you legislate honor into the hearts of evil men? I don't think you can, which to me illustrates the limits of modern "lawmaking", which thinks everything can be fixed if the right laws are passed.

That wasn't my point. The article was whining about "property rights" and how those are allegedly paramount to everything else. I am of the completely opposite position, that inherent human rights of the individual are far more important and paramount. The Peeping Tom illustration was intended to point out the absurdity of such "property rights are paramount" position.

Can we legislate honor into the hearts of evil men? Probably not, but that's what cages, ropes, and bullets are for. And no, I'm not only making a joke. Any father who would not act about some creep watching his daughter as I illustrated is no man at all. In the absence of criminal statutes, "other measures" would be completely justified.

The main problem with modern law is that it attempts to treat decent people and natural criminals as "equals."

[madfranks]

You do not have the right to go into someone else's home, store, business, street or roadway and demand that they leave you alone.


Why not? We become slaves of someone else when one ventures outside one's home? I say BS to that!

You're OK with being harassed repeatedly simply for going about one's peaceable business?

No, you don't become their slave, but you do become subject to their rules. Back to the point of this thread, if I own a grocery store, and I've suffered numerous robberies at the hands of hooded thugs, and I decide that henceforth nobody is allowed in my store with a hood, I am not making you my slave, I'm giving you the terms upon which you may enter my shop. And if you insist on wearing a hood in my store after I specifically told you not to, then who's really harassing who? I would say that you're harassing me, by insisting on your "freedom" to ignore the rules I've set for my customers while in my store.

[crimethink]

No, you don't become their slave, but you do become subject to their rules. Back to the point of this thread, if I own a grocery store, and I've suffered numerous robberies at the hands of hooded thugs, and I decide that henceforth nobody is allowed in my store with a hood, I am not making you my slave, I'm giving you the terms upon which you may enter my shop. And if you insist on wearing a hood in my store after I specifically told you not to, then who's really harassing who? I would say that you're harassing me, by insisting on your "freedom" to ignore the rules I've set for my customers while in my store.

The only purpose of these "no hoodies" (or "no hats" / "no sunglasses") rules are to implement yet another part of the Total Surveillance State. And there's no way I'm going to endorse that. It's the same "logic" as any other prior restraint-like policy: you "might" do something.

Further, in almost all cases, we're talking about incorporated businesses. Corporations, small or great, do not have human rights, regardless of what the lawyer class insists to the contrary. Want human rights for "your" business? Remain a sole proprietorship or partnership, with full personal liability.

The Total Surveillance State and Corporatism are dangers just as great as thuggish Niggers robbing stores. In fact, what created the former two are also what created the latter.