Black teen arrested for violating mall's 'no hoodie' dress code; man who defended him also detained

[SummerMadness]

Black teen arrested for violating mall's 'no hoodie' dress code; man who defended him also detained

A former journalist is accusing police of racial profiling after an incident caught on video shows a black teen being arrested for violating a mall's "no hoodie" dress code policy.

The video was posted to Facebook on Sunday by Peggy D. McKenzie, the wife of the accuser, Kevin McKenzie, who is also black. In a caption, Peggy shares her husband’s account of the confrontation and reveals that Kevin was later arrested too, allegedly for defending the teen and arguing that the dress code rule was discriminatory. The post is now going viral, with many commenters thanking Kevin for publicizing the incident.

But according to an investigation of the policy:
4 men kicked out of Wolfchase Galleria for 'wearing hoodies,' witness claims

FOX13 reviewed the code of conduct policy for the mall, which states that people "must wear appropriate clothing." There are no specifics about what type of clothing is banned.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm wearing a hoodie right now. I was going to go shopping later. Hmm.

 

[Lost4words]

Dont tell me you are claiming it was racist!

 

[Nithavela]

 

[Petros2015]

He survived!

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Most outlets are ignoring the facts and only posting what they want to make it seem like it was profiling. Heres what they aren't posting:

Outlets write that McKenzie said the boys never had their hoods up. That is an outright lie. First, McKenzie only noticed them after the first confrontation happened (he did not witness the first confrontation that led to the police being called and the boys being followed) - he noticed a security guard following the kids and started following them at that point... the cops were already en route and a cop is who stopped and confronted the kids when the cops arrived, not a security guard - so the confrontation with the security guard that resulted in the cops being called wasn't witnessed by McKenzie at all.

Second, McKenzie wrote, "It was unclear to me whether the violation involved wearing the hoods up or not; I hadn’t noticed any hoods when I first saw the security guard following them. Hoodie profiling was news to me." He did not know that hoods up might have been a reason they were being followed, so he did not make notice of it. He never says the one man arrested out of the group (the others weren't) didn't have his hood up, he says he didn't notice. And it is irrelevant whether he had a hood up at that point or not, because the exchange that security describes of the young man (just the one, not all the group remember - if the issue was black skin.

Why was only the one arrested and not the whole group?) refusing to comply and being belligerent toward them had already happened, the young man was already asked to leave for not complying and the cops were already called, and when the group walked away from the security guard, security followed them until the cops arrived to arrest just the one man who was asked to leave for not leaving private property (thus trespassing).

 

[Rubiks]

Pretty blatant thinly veiled racism.

I don't even think its possible for a mass to consistently enforce such nanny dress code policies.

 

[Rubiks]

Most outlets are ignoring the facts and only posting what they want to make it seem like it was profiling. Heres what they aren't posting:

Outlets write that McKenzie said the boys never had their hoods up. That is an outright lie. First, McKenzie only noticed them after the first confrontation happened (he did not witness the first confrontation that led to the police being called and the boys being followed) - he noticed a security guard following the kids and started following them at that point... the cops were already en route and a cop is who stopped and confronted the kids when the cops arrived, not a security guard - so the confrontation with the security guard that resulted in the cops being called wasn't witnessed by McKenzie at all.

Second, McKenzie wrote, "It was unclear to me whether the violation involved wearing the hoods up or not; I hadn’t noticed any hoods when I first saw the security guard following them. Hoodie profiling was news to me." He did not know that hoods up might have been a reason they were being followed, so he did not make notice of it. He never says the one man arrested out of the group (the others weren't) didn't have his hood up, he says he didn't notice. And it is irrelevant whether he had a hood up at that point or not, because the exchange that security describes of the young man (just the one, not all the group remember - if the issue was black skin.

Why was only the one arrested and not the whole group?) refusing to comply and being belligerent toward them had already happened, the young man was already asked to leave for not complying and the cops were already called, and when the group walked away from the security guard, security followed them until the cops arrived to arrest just the one man who was asked to leave for not leaving private property (thus trespassing).

Heaven forbid someone having their hoodie up.

</sarcasm>

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Outlets write that McKenzie said the boys never had their hoods up. That is an outright lie. First, McKenzie only noticed them after the first confrontation happened (he did not witness the first confrontation that led to the police being called and the boys being followed) - he noticed a security guard following the kids and started following them at that point... the cops were already en route and a cop is who stopped and confronted the kids when the cops arrived, not a security guard - so the confrontation with the security guard that resulted in the cops being called wasn't witnessed by McKenzie at all.

is there footage of this confrontation?

 

[PloverWing]

First, McKenzie only noticed them after the first confrontation happened (he did not witness the first confrontation that led to the police being called and the boys being followed) - he noticed a security guard following the kids and started following them at that point... the cops were already en route and a cop is who stopped and confronted the kids when the cops arrived, not a security guard - so the confrontation with the security guard that resulted in the cops being called wasn't witnessed by McKenzie at all.

So, what was the crime for which the police were called? Was there a theft, or had the young man been violent, or something like that?

 

[Hank77]

If someone wants access to this privately owned mall they need to keep their faces from being obscured by their clothing; hoods, handkerchiefs, veils, etc.
imo, that is not an unreasonable request.

 

[TCassidy]

The mall, even though it is open to the public, is nevertheless private property and the property owner has the right to make rules relating to the safety and security of other patrons.

Once the young man was approached and he refused to comply and was asked to leave but refused to do so he was in criminal trespass to private property which is an arrestable offense.

There may be room for interpretation if the dress code is ambiguous in its language. But that is a matter for the court to decide.

If the young man gets an attorney and beats the trespass charge he has a cause of action against the mall, and possibly against the police agency who affected the arrest.

 

[Hank77]

The mall, even though it is open to the public, is nevertheless private property and the property owner has the right to make rules relating to the safety and security of other patrons.

Once the young man was approached and he refused to comply and was asked to leave but refused to do so he was in criminal trespass to private property which is an arrestable offense.

There may be room for interpretation if the dress code is ambiguous in its language. But that is a matter for the court to decide.

If the young man gets an attorney and beats the trespass charge he has a cause of action against the mall, and possibly against the police agency who affected the arrest.

Since when does a property owner have to have everything in writing? It's their property and if they ask you to remove something concealing your face you either compile or leave the property.
If someone comes to my business with a weapon, a dog, etc. and I ask them to leave the weapon, dog, etc. in their vehicle and they don't want to do that they are choosing to leave instead. If they don't they are trespassing. It's that simple.

 

[TCassidy]

Since when does a property owner have to have everything in writing? It's their property and if they ask you to remove something concealing your face you either compile or leave the property.

Yep. That's what I said.

If someone comes to my business with a weapon, a dog, etc. and I ask them to leave the weapon, dog, etc. in their vehicle and they don't want to do that they are choosing to leave instead. If they don't they are trespassing. It's that simple.

Yep, that's what I said.

But bear in mind the predicate cause of requesting the person to leave is ambiguous and is therefore subject to scrutiny by the trier of fact.

 

[Hank77]

Yep. That's what I said.

Yep, that's what I said.

But bear in mind the predicate cause of requesting the person to leave is ambiguous and is therefore subject to scrutiny by the trial of fact.

How is it ambiguous?

 

[SummerMadness]

I thought someone might argue they broke the rules or whatever blah reason that puts them in the wrong...

Black teens were allegedly kicked out of mall over no-hoodie policy, so 4 white women wore hoodies 'just to see what would happen'

Four white women were determined to prove a point about racial profiling in the United States when they walked more than a mile around Wolfchase Galleria mall in Memphis, Tenn., on Saturday wearing hoodies — the article of clothing that got a black teen kicked out and arrested only a week earlier.

From Shannon Arthur:

We four white women walked more than a mile through the Wolfchase Galleria wearing our hoodies and our privilege, just to see what would happen. This is the same mall where several young black men were recently kicked out, roughed up, and/or arrested for allegedly violating an unposted no-hoodie policy, and a bystander was also arrested for documenting the injustice with his smartphone.

Sometimes our hoods were up, sometimes our hoods were down. If a security guard spotted us with our hoods up, they very politely asked us to take them down. One guard said it was because they need to be able to identify everybody’s faces. So we said, “Sure,” took them down, walked on, and put the hoods back up a bit later. Repeat. No threats. Point made.

We saw people wearing baseball caps. Those caps cover faces more than hoods do. We didn’t witness anyone being asked to remove a cap.

I respect law enforcement. And mall cops. But there’s no question that some members of our community are constantly harassed and traumatized where those with less melanin are given a pass. We must do better.

It's really not surprising, but all applause for these great allies against racism.

 

[Hank77]

I thought someone might argue they broke the rules or whatever blah reason that puts them in the wrong...

Black teens were allegedly kicked out of mall over no-hoodie policy, so 4 white women wore hoodies 'just to see what would happen'


From Shannon Arthur:


It's really not surprising, but all applause for these great allies against racism.

If you look at the video you will see that at least one of those young men didn't compile, his hood was up.
These women compiled when asked to. I'd be impressed if they had refused and were allowed to stay.
You can be sure security was aware of what they were trying to prove.

 

[SummerMadness]

If you look at the video you will see that at least one of those young men didn't compile, his hood was up.
These women compiled when asked to. I'd be impressed if they had refused and were allowed to stay.
You can be sure security was aware of what they were trying to prove.

I looked at the video, no one's hood was up. It's also difficult to follow a policy that isn't written anywhere. Regardless, the policy is only there for the express purpose of harassing young black men that may enter the mall.

 

[Hank77]

I looked at the video, no one's hood was up. It's also difficult to follow a policy that isn't written anywhere. Regardless, the policy is only there for the express purpose of harassing young black men that may enter the mall.

Then I was mistaken looking at the little thumbnail screen.
However, they had already been removed once and they came back demanding they had rights.
It doesn't matter if there is a written policy or not. If you are asked to leave private property, you leave. Obviously black people were welcome there as the older man shopped there.
Maybe, just maybe, the thing to do would be to come back the another day, not wearing hoodies at all, and see how it goes. Still having issues....go to the media, they'll love it, and you will be in the right no question about it.
Those white women pulling their charade means nothing and will go nowhere.

 

[TCassidy]

How is it ambiguous?

The policy simple forbids "inappropriate clothing" but there is no description or example of what constitutes "inappropriate." There is certainly no mention of a hoodie, which is very common attire among our youth today.

By the way, this has all already been adjudicated in Nevada where just about every casino has a "no hood" policy. You can wear a hoodie but the hood has to be down so the facial recognition software can identify those the NGC have barred from casinos.