This is topic Question Authority!!!! (Warning: disturbing cases of unquestioning obedience) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Grisha just linked me to this article and it completely boggles me. I don't just guess but know that I wouldn't do horrible things to people just because some authority figure told me to. Yet it's a strange human compulsion, seemingly.
Is the Nuremburg defense acceptable in this case? Is it ever acceptable?
How can people ever turn their moral agency over to someone else like this? Unquestioning obedience is evil.
[ October 10, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
Also cops wont have citizens search each other
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have long believed that there is almost no evil that humans will not inflict on each other as long as they believe it's their job. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sickened* And I thought the Milgram experiments were bad.
I think the sickest part is McDonald's blaming the victim, though. Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*sickened and shocked as well*
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Damn. *insert copious other swear words in here as well.*
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
yeah, especially saying she could have waled out if she didn't approve. Yeah sure, she could have walked out completely naked, after some how getting past a guy twice her size, and out of a locked room, and past her manager. Then she could just go walk home naked, leaving her car, and her clothes behind.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think I was personally innoculated against blind obedience to authority because of having been abused as a child.
Why do humans have this instinct to obey? Is it ever a good thing? I wonder if we should be specifically training kids to always question everything they're told to do, and make their own moral choices.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I believe what is needed is a solid moral framework upon which to base judgement and decision, and the simple concept of obedience cannot and must not be that moral reference. Rather, obedience must always be checked against clear notions of right and wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do humans have this instinct to obey?
I'm analyzing this impulse as part of a separate discussion happening on Sakeriver right now, actually. And I think part of it might be because so much of our moral literature prizes obedience above other values. That much of our modern literature prizes independent morality over obedience has I think produced a certain cultural schizophrenia.
Posted by dropofTapioca (Member # 7867) on :
I never cease to be amazed and sickened at how easily the human mind can be hijacked. Humans are not rational beings, however much we would like to be.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Well, the experiments in the 60s proved primarily that if we believe the responsibility is on the shoulders of someone with more authority and it has to be done, we turn into cows. Machiavelli knew it. Half of The Prince is based around that.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think it does have a lot to do with moral authorities telling children that they ought to obey adults. Heck, I remember being at a Child Evangelism Fellowship camp where there was a song about obeying. "Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe." I realized later that this was sort of scary, telling children to obey immediately, without question.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Exactly. Obedience to your superiors is a good thing, but you cannot shirk the personal responsibility of refusing orders that would cause you to do something wrong.
Of course, if you have no objective concept of right and wrong, that becomes a little difficult.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I really hope that guy who made the phone calls is put away for some time.
edited: for sentence structure.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Or injured.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
They describe the suspect as shaking uncontrollably, not being intelligent or forceful at all in person. I don't want to convict this guy before his trial, but I knew someone once who was really nice and mild mannered in person whom I only realized was a sociopath when I got to know him online. Apparently in real life he was meek and nice only because he was so very unimposing as a person. Online he was a sicko petty criminal type who enjoyed the feeling of power he got from duping people, similar to the guy in this case. Once I saw the real him online then I was able to see the signs in real life as well, but they were small things that I had dismissed before cause he seemed nice overall.
So I totally find it believable now that someone meek and mild in person could turn into a creepy power-tripper over the phone. I hope that guy I knew got help for his mental problems.
[ October 10, 2005, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think questioning authority is typically only easy when you are questioning someone else's authority - an authority you don't believe in. But when the authority is your own religion, or a teacher you trust, or the science textbook you accept, the family members that you rely upon, or even your own eyes, ears, and mind, it's much harder to follow that advice.
I think the reason for that is because following authority tends to end up being an effective strategy, for most (but not all!) cases. And ultimately, it really just boils down to which authority to trust more - your own instincts & reasoning, or someone/something else? Neither can be completely trusted.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the obedience thing comes from more than just indoctrination. It seems to me that it's part of the us-them duality. If you stay with the herd, the herd protects you. If you trust on your own judgement then you become an outcast.
By the very act of being named as a criminal someone becomes a non-person in this situation. Then the assistant-manager person either treats them horribly (but oh well after all they're a non-person) or else risks becoming a non-person themselves (which is terrifying). I think the answer lies in how easy it is to become a non-person in any human society. All it takes is for someone to call you a criminal.
There's something crucial about dominance and power politics going on in this case. I wish I understood exactly what it was.
[ October 10, 2005, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In addition to impersonating a police officer, in most states the caller is responsible for everything done at his request. So everything the person who did it can be charged with, the caller can be charged with.
[ October 10, 2005, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
This person, whoever made the phone calls, is a real life troll, you know? It seems like exactly the same kick that people get from trolling. Would internet people be more suspicious of something like that, just because we've seen so many trolls online?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dagonee, I'm really glad to hear that. I think that is what justice demands.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Thank G-d we can do that, at least.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by digging_holes: I believe what is needed is a solid moral framework upon which to base judgement and decision, and the simple concept of obedience cannot and must not be that moral reference. Rather, obedience must always be checked against clear notions of right and wrong.
This is certainly true.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Honestly, I'd like to see McDonald's take a little responsibilty here. A memo hardly seems like a sure-fire way to protect and inform employees. Memos are a great way to spread word to a whole lot of people in a company, but if their's something really important, shouldn't it be communicated by a store manager directly to employees?
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I'm really glad to hear that. I think that is what justice demands.
Unfortunately, I doubt they'll catch the guy.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There is evil in the world, and this is what it looks like, sometimes.
The instinct to obey authority figures is quirky. I can not coerce my teen aged son to clean up his room.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
This is one of several articles I've read through Hatrack over the years that I wish I could go back and not read.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
And, actually, the more that I think about it, the more I wish that the title of this thread more accurately described the horror of that article... I kind of thought I was going to be reading about mean but funny "prank calls", not 18 year old girls being raped and abused.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
"Question authority" is a double-edged sword. It give people who want to ignore what they should do an excuse. In my experience people are generally looking for some excuse to do what they want, or avoid responsibility for their actions. Everyone has urges they suppress. Can you have a working society with the principle of “question authority?” Like ice in a lake, the veneer we put over our desires and animal nature varies from person to person. If you find a thin place it’s easy to bring it to the surface. Most of us feel bad for the victim. But to raise it to a point that we bend the problem the opposite way isn’t a solution. If you take the opposite tact, you just have the opposite problems, and “question authority” is the rallying cry for anarchy. Perhaps “Confirm authority”. In the place of the manager I would have checked, or called corporate, or the police, when the requests became odd. Even this is an imperfect solution because without some experience, what is odd? It still comes down to a persons knowledge of what is acceptable, and the marks where chosen for this. If you grow up in a small town, trust and such things are far more common than in cities. Scammers have always picked places like this for their targets. The other expectation that companies have omniscience is in the same vein as the authority issue. Try this exercise: You are in charge of McDonalds and have printed manuals that give specific guidelines about what the company allows. Employees don’t read them. How do you make them read them without getting in trouble? Apparently the managers don’t read them either. Second you have called all the stores and warned them about this going on. You don’t list out ever possibility, because you assume that a warning is sufficient. I have to ask, if someone called you and wanted you to strip-search your 18-year-old daughter, would you just do it? So being in charge of McDonalds how do you protect however many thousands of employees who don’t make the leap of intuition that a warning about a hoax call might include a hoax calls that ask for things like strip searches. I’m not a proponent of McDonalds, I don’t much care for them, but to point at this or that instead of the real issue doesn’t do much good. The real issue is that bad things happen. You try to minimize them. There are bad people that will do bad things given the chance. And for others the world has become so complicated and difficult to deal with. Without exposure to it we don’t guard against it, and that exposure is often painful. Our marketing is aimed at the thin spots. I believe this is the reason you see more of the extreme behavior. If someone’s ice is thin and they are exposed to enough advertisements that say it’s ok, others are doing it, you deserve it, don’t hold yourself back, etc., then people eventually feel it’s not really so bad to act on inappropriate behaviors. Advertisement has become a means of getting past people basic “no”. Not everyone can handle the temptation and so we see the effect. If we encourage the bad tendencies we will see more of the bad tendencies.
Askew Finding the balance
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I find this horrifying. I'm going to think on it for awhile more but I think it says something very disturbing about American culture.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
A lot of times we hear about situations and we say to ourselves that we can't really know what we would do if were in that situation. Like, would we be part of the screaming crowd when Jesus was crucified, or would we be one of His crying followers? Would we go along with the status quo if we were Germans during World War II, or would we speak out?
Well, in this instance... There is NO doubt in my mind. I never would have been fooled by such a phone call. I would have told them to F off and called the police.
People are stupid.
-Katarain
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You know, it says, "how would we initially react?"
I don't know about you, but I would ask the caller for a badge number, then ask him to hold while I called and checked it. I would do this if anyone called asking me anything and claimed to be a police officer.
Are the people who blindly obeyed just not as smart as I am? I don't know. But last I heard, stupidity is not a viable defense, nor is following illegal orders from anyone when not under imminent threat of your life.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm going to take an unusual stance and actually defend McDonalds, a company I don't exactly think the world of. For one thing, according to them they have a policy against strip searching employees, that alone should have been enough - the manager should have said to the caller "It's against company policy to strip search employees, I can't do it." They also did send out a warning, the article seems to suggest they sent a written memo and there was a phone message for managers.
Truly, the square sum of blame has to fall on the managers who allowed this to happen.
But the points about blindly accepting authority are good ones. Any decent cop would understand if you said "hey, I'm not comfortable, can I hang up and call the station back myself?" Any decent cop would understand if a person asked for photo ID of a person claiming to be a police officer. If they object to those types of things, it's a pretty clear indication they aren't what they say they are. No one should ever be afraid to question someone who claims to be a police officer because if they're legit, they'll understand. My father the cop was the one who told me to always ask to see not just a badge, but photo identification as well. Fake badges are easily obtained and police impersonators are common enough that cops understand and appreciate the public's need to be wary.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Wow that article really creeped me out.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
The "square sum of blame" has to fall on the person who is making the calls.
I'm currently studying psychology in college and we had to study Milgram's experiments and others like it. It would be painfully easy to get people to do what you want so long as they percieve that you have authority over them.
Also, the person making the calls is unsing the "foot in the door technique" which is where you start with something small. The caller did not tell the manager to strip search the employee. It clearly states that the manager was told to remove one piece of clothing at a time.
Would you obey if you were told that someone was working for you was suspected of thievery? What if the suspect were wearing a heavy jacket and they just told you to take that off because it could easily conceal stolen merchandise. I would probably obey. I don't like admitting it but I would.
I think of myself as upstanding enough not to fall for this sort of thing. But then again, I bet the people who did fall for it would have thought better of themselves too.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Yeah, but to start slapping a naked girl's butt? To give a guy oral sex? At some point, it has to trigger a response like, "This isn't right. This makes no sense. Why would a cop ask me to do this?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I finally finished the article. Looks like they caught the guy making some of the calls.
He kept the calling card. Moron.
This is discouraging, though:
quote:Detectives in other jurisdictions say they didn't press charges because the caller's crime would be a misdemeanor for which he could not be extradited.
There's a possible Federal Travel Act violation, depending on if unlawful imprisonment is a crime of violence. I wonder if any U.S. Attorney's have looked into this.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This quote is interesting...
quote:Perceived authority carries much power, studies show Psychological experts say it is human nature to obey orders, no matter how evil they might seem -- as was illustrated in one of the most famous and frightening human experiments of the 20th century.
Seeking to understand why so many Germans followed orders during the Holocaust, Dr. Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, took out a classified ad in 1960 and 1961, inviting residents of New Haven, Conn., to take part in what they were told was a study of the relationship between punishment and learning.
A man in a white lab coat introduced the participants to a student, and told them to shock the student each time he made a mistake, increasing the voltage with each error.
In reality, the machine was a prop, and the student was an actor who wasn't shocked. Yet nearly two-thirds of Milgram's subjects gave what they believed were paralyzing jolts to a pitifully protesting victim simply because an authority figure -- the man in the white coat -- had commanded them to do so.
"With numbing regularity, good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe," Milgram wrote of his results, which were later replicated in nine other countries.
Milgram died in 1984, but his biographer and protege, Dr. Thomas Blass, said in an interview that the behavior of the people duped in the strip-search hoaxes would not have surprised him.
"Once you accept another person's authority, you become a different person," Blass said. "You are concerned with how well you follow out your orders, rather than whether it is right or wrong."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Would you obey if you were told that someone was working for you was suspected of thievery?
Absolutely not. I would ask, as the manager, who reported the suspected thievery and make sure that all proper procedures for reporting and investigating the theft ere observed.
Every large corporation, McDonald's included I'm sure, has procedures and policies in place that must be followed by the management when an employee is suspected of wrongdoing. Anything that deviated from thos policies and procedures should have sent up red flags and they should not have done it.
This is not to exonerate the caller - I believe he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but he actually didn't do anything physical to those girls - the people who did are the ones I hold most responsible.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree, although I think that the caller should be held responsible because he was the one with the intent to harm people initially, and the one who came up with and executed the plan to suck people into it.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
I think what you would do is heavily based on what your self-view is and the state you are in at the moment. If you have a strong view of self and the morals that you find acceptable and not acceptable then you are less susceptible to a state dependant decision. If you’re very hungry and I tell you that it’s ok to steal the bread, your justification for the action you take is going to go up much faster than if you’re full. The ice is much thinner and so breaks through easier. Manipulation of people is often bringing desires that are already there past the “no” response. The boyfriend Nix has a naked young girl in front of him. What would his reaction be? Most men would be turned on at some level. How thin does your ice get in that situation? You want to do what the caller is telling you but is your “no” response still strong enough to say No. You’ve sworn off drinking for a week, but on Friday you go out with friend after telling them you can’t drink, peer pressure ensues and how thin does your ice get? Just one? What does it matter anyway, it was just a promise to yourself? The desire was there and he got them past their “no” response. It should also be noted that the article mentioned the caller would have to call numerous places till he got someone will to do what he said.
Askew
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the caller is far more responsible than the managers. His intent was that this happen, he had every reason to expect it to work, and therefore he has all the culpability of the one who executed it plus the additional culpability of the one who sought it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But that seems to remove the responsibility of the one who followed "orders" that were both illegal and against company policy, not to mention wrong.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Edit: was written to follow Askew
Or, some of us are just naturally contrary...
*compares stack of Liam's school notes to similar stack saved for me by my mother*
While I admit that I HAVE done nonsensical things that people told me to do (usually on the job-- I used to work for the Federal government) I did them only when I could see no harm in it. Otherwise, I'd smile and nod and do what I thought was right as soon as I could get away with it without causing a ruckus.
I have seen my natural contrariness beaaten down somewhat by life, but this is one reason I treasure my son's innate contrariness. Have you ever noticed that most rules in school exist for the convenience of the teacher, and to establish in us a sort of herd mentality?
I find that uncomfortable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But that seems to remove the responsibility of the one who followed "orders" that were both illegal and against company policy, not to mention wrong.
Only if you hold culpability to be a zero-sum game, where assigning culpability to party A automatically removes it from party B.
I don't believe that. "All the culpability of the one who executed it" was not quantified in my post. It can be any number you want; to me, it's a very large number.
What I'm saying is that if the manager's culpability is X, the caller's culpability is X+Y, where Y is a positive number.
This does not reduce the value of X at all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, okay.
I'd agree with that, mostly. As long as the people who actually did it are fully held accountable for their own actions, as well. (Not treated as victims as they were in some cases.)
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In addition to impersonating a police officer, in most states the caller is responsible for everything done at his request. So everything the person who did it can be charged with, the caller can be charged with.
Actually, so far asside from impersonating a police officer, they can only charge him (in kentucky at least) with things like solicitation, coersion, etc. but no felonies asside from impersonating a police officer.
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
Also, some of things he got them to do, how could anyone really claim they thaught they were conducting a search for police?
How could a grown adult think that forcing a teenage girl to strip naked, and perform oral sex on him, would some how show if she had, or had not, stolen a purse? They said making the girl kiss him was to check for substances on her breath, nude jumping jacks to see if anything concealed fell from the girl, which are insane ideas for how to check if a person stole something, but what could the manager's fiance have possibly thaught he was checking, by having her perform sex acts on him?
Some of things listed in other articles, or in this one, that people in other cases were convinced to do, are just as bizarre, and also lead me to wonder, what could they have possibly thaught they were checking for? This article,(beware of the language used) describes a Taco bellmanager who performed a cavity search on a 17 year old customer, at the direction of the voice on the phone, claiming to be a police officer, who described a girl who was suspected of stealing a pocket book. Now seriously, a pocket book, requires a cavity search? Maybe i am confused as to the size of a pocket book, but it seems unlikely such methods would be used to conceal one.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Hmmm... I'm working retail presently for a jewlery store We have specific -phone- directions on how to handle things. We're instructed that if anybody makes us feel uncomfortable on the phone we're to get the manager. If he's not there we're to ask if we can tape the conversation- if they say yes we do so, if they say no we're to tell them "sorry, I can't help you, have a good day" and hang up right away. If they continue to call and bother us, we're to record the phone number and call the police.
As far as the manager having us do things we're uncomfortable with we're to get mall management to come and intercede and we're to call headquarters.
(I've never worked fast food, and this is my second tiem working retail (the first time was a short stint because I didn't like it), so I have no idea what they practice for the most part)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, so far asside from impersonating a police officer, they can only charge him (in kentucky at least) with things like solicitation, coersion, etc. but no felonies asside from impersonating a police officer.
Hence the "most states." The federal law regarding principals says:
quote:Sec. 2. Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Many states have similar rules.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Legal question: Does the fact that the caller was in Florida and the victim in Kentucky make this prosecutable as a Federal crime?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I did a little more research on the Travel Act, but it's probably not applicable. The violence has to be in furtherence of specific activities (gambling, etc.) to be illegal under the act.
I'd have to look for something else.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Might there be something under the laws used to prosecute internet crimes that would be applicable?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wire fraud requires the intent to acquire property. Property can be tangible or intangible, but it must be property in both the hands of the victim and the hands of the defendant. Even if you could make some case that he's getting "property" by getting some cheap thrills he might have to pay for, it's certainly not property to the person being searched. So wire fraud is a no go.
Can't find any other possibilities yet.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
meant to follow response by Olivet
I certainly have a strong personality. I would not have fallen for the caller. I also would not have put up with the search. I certainly would not have had sex after being told to, or if someone else tried to do it with me that was told to. The level of intellect that post here may be a bit higher than some of the people involved. I have friends who truly believe almost every urban legend they hear. Things that seem so ridiculous to me that I wonder how they can possibly believe them. Not everyone is bright as non PC as that is to say. Some people are just gullible. If you hadn’t read the employee manual then I can see some logic in a strip search to see if she had it on her. I do find the manager culpability after that though. How calling your boyfriend in would make any sense is past what I can imagine. Others I think are deserving of repercussions. I agree with Grisha. It is beyond what I can understand how you would not think something was going on when the guy told you to cover the girl back up whenever your fiancée came into the room. Why do that unless something needs to be hidden? Or how it would promote a police investigation. Hold your ‘gun’ on her and see if she talks? I think the desires where there and this was an easy excuse and avoidance of responsibility. I even believe he felt bad afterwards. People do unbelievable things in the moment. As for the employee, if you’ve ever been in a lock up situation and have no real idea what your rights are or are not, it can be intimidating. I can understand stripping and waiting, even doing the jumping around.
[ October 10, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Askew ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: I can understand stripping and waiting, even doing the jumping around.
I guess I can too, because I know some people do not react to things as I do. If someone, anyone, told me to strip while I was at work, I would walk out right then and go to the police.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
I remember the first time I saw flashing red lights behind me. I remember it because my heart was palpating in my throat, my adrenaline flash was screaming through my nerves, and my mind was in a state of terror/dread. It wasn’t such a big deal but it had never happened before. Now I just say “Ah… rats”. The difference is experience and some of the lessons are not much fun. Fortunately other parts are lots of fun.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, being straight out of high school in her first job is probably part of why she didn't argue more.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The first thing that I find really disturbing about this is how little these people know about their rights and simple police proceedure.
The idea that the police might call and employer and ask him/her to detain and strip search an employee is laughable to anyone who understands the rights of employees, employers and police proceedure. When you add to that calling in the managers boy friend to physically and sexually abuse an employee, I can't see how anyone could believe the police might legally make such a request.
Secondly, I find it very disturbing that this was done at a place of employment and that so many people were willing to believe that an employer/manager had some authority of an employee regarding a investigation of a crime that did not occur in the work place. Though I can't prove it, I suspect that if these calls had been made to private residences and people had been asked to strip search and abuse a roommate or family member, far fewer people would have complied.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't think "question authority" implies anarchy. When it comes down to it, people are ultimately in charge of themselves. If obedience is unquestioned, then you've given over your moral agency to someone else, which is always a mistake.
That's not to say that DISobedience should be the rule, either. Just that every order from authority should be questioned to be sure it's reasonable and valid. Authorities that prove themselves over time to be trustworthy, and motivated by the good of the individual and the greater good, gain trust and then are granted more authority over the individual's judgements. Authorities that prove themselves to be arbitrary and cruel, or motivated by self-interest, lose trust and ultimately have no authority.
This is true for governments as well as bosses, parents, teachers, older siblings, pet owners, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The first thing that I find really disturbing about this is how little these people know about their rights and simple police proceedure.
This is a HUGE problem. Ultimately, we only get the rights we as individuals assert. It's unfortunate, and we definitely should try to stop people from infringing on others rights.
But ultimately the best defense is making sure people know what their rights are and know they have to assert them.
And punishing without mercy those who seek retribution for someone asserting rights.
It's bad enough that people consent away their rights to legitimate authority because they think they have to. It's even more disturbing that it leaves them vulnerable to these kinds of predators.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Like I said before, its all about the foot in the door technique. Granted, these people should be held responsible for what they did. But we should also remember that none of them would have done those things if not for the influence of the percieved authority figure.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
My day job is being a security officer. One of the things they taught us that we are never to touch anyone...even a touch can be considered wrongful arrest or even assault.
There are three levels to security: corporate/civilian security guards, Security Police, and Peace Officers/Police.
Security guards have no power of arrest, Security Police are glorified security guards who have the power of arrest for misdemeanors on whatever property they guard, and Peace Officers can arrest anywhere, obviously.
So...if I was ever asked to strip-search someone, I know to refuse. I would need to be deputized before I could possible do this, and over the phone is not s.o.p.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Sheesh.
How utterly bizarre - and scary.
The use of the word "sodomy" threw me though. Then I remembered it's *other* definition - which made a lot more sense.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askew: "Question authority" is a double-edged sword. It give people who want to ignore what they should do an excuse. In my experience people are generally looking for some excuse to do what they want, or avoid responsibility for their actions. Everyone has urges they suppress. Can you have a working society with the principle of “question authority?” Like ice in a lake, the veneer we put over our desires and animal nature varies from person to person. If you find a thin place it’s easy to bring it to the surface. Most of us feel bad for the victim. But to raise it to a point that we bend the problem the opposite way isn’t a solution. If you take the opposite tact, you just have the opposite problems, and “question authority” is the rallying cry for anarchy.
What really needs to become a cultural meme is not so much "question authority" but "critical thinking". If you learn the latter, the former is automatic and in-check. For instance, at almost any point in the instance most detailed in the linked article, a modicum of critical thinking could have ended the trials of this young girl before they went so far. The manager could simply have told the police to send a squad car. After all, she is not a policeman. She has no proof over the phone that the person giving commands is a policeman. The assistant manager, even though (hell, especially because) he didn't know what was going on on the phone should have demanded the incident stop and the police be called. The boyfriend called in later should have known he had no authority in the incident and given the extreme nature of the things he was being asked to do should have demanded extreme proof of the caller's credentials.
Sure, experiments show that people become sheep when they accept authority. Sure, "question authority" becomes the mantra of the other extreme. Like nearly everything else in life, the truth lies somewhere in the happy medium. I think critical thinking should be a class in every high-school, mandatory for graduation. This article is a near perfect object lesson for such a class.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: Authorities that prove themselves to be arbitrary and cruel, or motivated by self-interest, lose trust and ultimately have no authority.
This is true for governments as well as bosses, parents, teachers, older siblings, pet owners, etc.
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Way back when I was being talked to by the school counselor for biting a boy (I was seven), the message she gave me was that it was 'normal' for the boy to pick on me. He pulled my coat off on the playground trying to catch me, and when he caught me he pulled my arm until I had an 'indian burn'. I bit him to make him let go, because I had tried everything else.
He was 'normal' for attacking me, but I was 'abnormal' for thinking of an effective way to stop him and implementing it.
That is when the school system lost moral authority over me, by proving I didn't matter as much as the boy. That is when the real troubles began.
Anarchy, no, but common sense seems to be becoming... less common.
There has to be something between anarchy and doing beastly things because somebody told you to.
Which is what I'm trying to teach my son. He gets punished at home for disobeying the teachers and acting up in school. I have to tell him to stay out of trouble, even though sometimes what they ask him to do doesn't make sense to him. But I still want to keep that spark of thinking for himself alive.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Wow, just reading this story makes me shiver. It's so upsetting that I'm having trouble just trying to write a coherent response.
First of all, I think the fear, terror, dread, adrenaline, and uncertainty would make it very difficult for the victimized girl to think clearly about her situation and her options (none of which were very appealing). It's pretty hard to be rational when fear and instinct take over a person's mind.
My guess would be that she would desperately cling to the distant hope that if she just cooperated it would soon be over, as opposed to trying to resist with the fear that she would just have to repeat the same humiliating experience with even more people. I think many people would rather just get the ordeal over with instead of possibly creating even more problems and drawing out the experience even longer.
As for the managers and other people that carried out the caller's requests, I have nothing sympathetic to say about them. Yes, they were victimized, but they should still be held accountable for their actions.
Now, everyone talks about how the caller felt a sense of empowerment through these calls, but I don't think he was the only one. It is my opinion that everyone has an innate, but perhaps latent, desire for power and control. And I think this has an influence on how people react to certain situations. Some people are frightened by power, some people delight in it, and some people exert power as a means of coping with the things they do not have control over.
I don't think this all comes down to blind obedience. I think in some cases the requests of the caller play on a person's own subconscious desire for empowerment.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Zeugma, is the modified title better, you think? I found this case very disturbing as well, and want to warn people appropriately.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Yes, thank you.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
After skimming through the linked article, I'm more grateful than ever that my parents raised me to question authority.
Now, I feel I have to explain, because some people seem to be thinking that "question authority" = "flaunt authority". That is not what I was taught at all. I was taught that just because someone is in a position of authority, it does not mean that they are necessarily wise, nor necessarily honest, and that if I was asked to do something that made me uncomfortable, I should find out why I was expected to do it before complying, and to respectfully refuse it the reasoning given did not resolve my questions. This principle certainly did not extend to things that I just didn't want to do, but only to things that struck me as wrong in some way.
Edit to clarify one sentence.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
I don't mean to trivialize this (At All), but I watch a lot of television, especially police dramas, and that, among other experiences, has taught me the limits of the law. It has also taught me that people can be manipulative and criminal. I know I am not a minority in my television-watching, and am flabbergasted that this creature got away with so much.
On the other hand, I do remember being a lackey at a fast food restaurant, and how unformed my character was at that point. I feel for these victims and identify with them. I was treated unkindly at the hands of a manager/owner once (not a chain restaurant), and regret not standing up for myself. I understand a little bit of how they were victimized.
I had to stop reading the article at a certain point.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I don't think "question authority" implies anarchy.
I agree “question authority” doesn’t imply anarchy, but it easily becomes an excuse for it. Think of people at work or other situations where people find all sorts of excuses to not do what they should. That’s why I like “confirm authority”. It’s syntax but the difference I see is one immediately brings an idea of opposition and one doesn’t. I am a very independent person, but I recognize the need for some chain of authority if we are going to achieve anything other than what we can do as individuals. I also recognize that people who pursue power can have agendas other than the benefit of the people working for them, and so there needs to be some check. I would use the example of Unions. At first the employers did terrible things to the workers. Not good. Then Unions gave workers power, and now the Unions (not all) allow a work ethic that can be pretty low. People tend towards extremes. If a little is good a lot is better.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: What really needs to become a cultural meme is not so much "question authority" but "critical thinking".
KarlEd reiterates the point of thought vs. question. How do you find a balance between doing what needs done and not being abused? As a subjective thing it’s difficult if not impossible to make a black and white distinction. It enters the grey areas of human thought and perception. The only way I can see to approach it is “think”. From the discussion here it seem pretty clear that most people contributing would not have obeyed the caller. This just underlines the point that the cross section of people contributing isn’t representative of humanity. If someone isn’t capable of the thought process to evaluate a situation, what can be done? (Specifically the manager and the strip search or the frightened girl allowing it. I still feel the boyfriend used the caller as an excuse to act out desires.) Or is it just nature in action selecting for those that can?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But ultimately the best defense is making sure people know what their rights are and know they have to assert them.
There is another side to the rights issue at work here, people, namely managers and employers, assuming they have rights which they do not have. A phone call from the police does not give any one the right to detain and abuse another person. People need not only to understand and assert their own rights, they need to understand they rights of others and their limitations under the law.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
lma, I agree that questioning authority is not the same as flaunting it. I'm teaching my kids to question everything, in large part because of sick bastards like that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is another side to the rights issue at work here, people, namely managers and employers, assuming they have rights which they do not have. A phone call from the police does not give any one the right to detain and abuse another person. People need not only to understand and assert their own rights, they need to understand they rights of others and their limitations under the law.
I agree, and these people should be punished severely. But ultimately, the final protection of rights rests with the holder. Had this young woman known more, she could have simply said, "have the police come find me" and walk out. I don't blame her one bit for not doing so. But I wish people were educated to the point where they know this is the appropriate response and were confident enough to make it.
Edit: I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong. At minimum, they had all the information to reach that conclusion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It is my opinion that everyone has an innate, but perhaps latent, desire for power and control.
I suspect this is true as well, and it is disturbing and ugly that he was able to bring this out in them. Most humans keep their monstrous desires in check pretty well.
Remember how he had to call one place 10 times before he found someone who would play his sick little game? We hear about the cases where he succeeded more than the ones where he failed. He succeeded when he did because he found people who for whatever reason were not able to overcome his influence. And, of course, we are disturbed that he succeeded as often as he did.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong.
Me too. Maybe it's because of my having done some work in corporate managerial training, or my mom's work as a consultant, but I'm flabbergasted that anyone in any type of managerial position would not know that they don't have the right to do some of the things to employees that they did. I mean, one thing every manager should be drilled with is what type of liability the company has if they mistreat their employees, so I can't imagine a manager who wouldn't be terrified that the girl would sue her. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Is there no training at all for managerial positions in these companies? I mean sure, it's McDonald's they can't pay even their managers a lot of money, but it seems like the company would have some sort of managerial training in place just to protect its own interests.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It looks like he targeted areas where the people were most likely to be isolated and uneducated. The system may break-down in rural areas.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Had this young woman known more, she could have simply said, "have the police come find me" and walk out. I don't blame her one bit for not doing so. But I wish people were educated to the point where they know this is the appropriate response and were confident enough to make it.
I'm not convinced that more knowledge would necessarily have changed the outcome. Unfortunately there is a very lage gap between having knowledge and the ability to use knowledge to make a rational decision during high stress situations.
And just knowing that the police and/or manager has limitations doesn't necessarily mean they abide by them. So let's assume the girl knew that this shouldn't be happening but felt that she had no choice in the matter.
If she felt she was going to be strip searched either way, she may have actually preferred it was done by coworkers whom she thought would be a little more considerate than corrupt police officers.
Just the mere thought of being arrested in a restaurant, handcuffed, and dragged to a police station, humiliated by complete strangers and then left in a cell overnight might have frightened her enough to want to just get the ordeal over with as quickly as possible. People will endure quite a lot just to avoid public humiliation.
She probably thought the whole thing would be over in five minutes when it was discovered that she did not steal anything, so she didn't really have a reason to assume that things would go as far as they eventually did. Instead, she found herself completely naked with a guy twice her size, who would hit her when she didn't cooperate, standing between her and her only way out, with every reason to believe that she would have to endure all of this (and worse) over again if she didn't fully cooperate. Finding herself completely isolated after being turned on by her cowokers, business professionals, and the law enforcers who were supposed to serve and protect, any bit of confidence and determination was probably shattered long ago.
I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to think clearly under such a trying situation. The fact that after it was all over she asked if she had to come in to work the next day shows that her mind was still trying to grasp the realities of what was happening.
I'm not trying to argue with you since you did acknowledge that you don't blame her one bit for what she did. I just wish there were some better methods in place to catch these types of abuses so that it never has to get to the final protection of rights, namely, the knowledge of the holder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think a personal autonomy course would be a good idea.
Everyone needs actual lessons in saying "No" - No is a complete sentence.
I'd also require "The Gift of Fear" for everyone in this class to give people the confidence to trust their intuition and use fear for its proper purpose.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that she did in fact ask to be taken to the police station instead of being searched by her manager.
""I was bawling my eyes out and literally begging them to take me to the police station because I didn't do anything wrong," Ogborn said later in a deposition. "
For whatever reason, the manager decided to take her back and do it there instead.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
ElJay, Hmmm, interesting point.
Added: Well, that makes my less than favorable opinion of management drop even further.
Like I mentioned earlier, I think the whole power thing was a factor. Power is like an addictive substance that you know is bad, yet your mind craves it once you get a taste of having someone's entire life (for better or worse) in the palm of your hand. (reminds me of Being John Malkovich)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not missing it.But she had already surrendered her clothes at that point, right? (Edit: i reread it, and it appears she had not surrendered her clothes. this confirms the analysis - at that point she should have left.)
If not, she should have just left.
As difficult as that it, that's what she should have done. Again, I'm not blaming her for not doing it.
But we need to figure out what we can do to help as many people as possible choose that course of action in this situation. And, of course, we can't just teach this situation. We're really trying to teach people how to preseve the integrity of their person and autonomy.
This must be taught, and it goes way beyond "question authority."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I completely agree that she should have pitched a fit and left. When it said that the assistant manager "led" her to the office, with another assistant manager accompanying, I'm wondering if perhaps they took her by the arm or used some intimidation tactics. But either way, it shows that she didn't just accept that this was okay. She "should have" stood up for her rights more forcefully, but they also should have listened to her and told the "police officer" on the phone to send a squad car to arrest her, as that was what she had chosen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but they also should have listened to her and told the "police officer" on the phone to send a squad car to arrest her,
Absolutely. No question.
Unfortunately, someone will always try to infringe on us. I'e seen firsthand our limitations as a society in punishing such behavior. I'd love to see more investment in preventing this behavior, and educating potential offenders is only half of what we can do.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree with you. When it comes down to it, I firmly believe that I am responsible for protecting myself, and trusting in others to do it for me is a risk I don't care to take. I just worry that when we start talking about what she should have done it starts sounding an awful lot like blaming the victim, which is exactly what McDonald's is trying to do to get out of the lawsuit. (They said she went along with all of it willingly to "clear her good name" and could have walked out at any time. While she arguably could have walked out initially, I don't think anyone here is arguing she could have after she was locked naked in a room with a man 145 pounds heavier than her.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, McDonald's is toast in this. I'm assuming the managers worked for them (I'm not sure what would happen if it were a franchise situation). If so, they are responsible for everything the managers did.
If the managers are convicted, it's hard to see McD's having any way out of liability.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I had the same impression ElJay did -- that she was taken by the arm by someone older and larger than she was and "escorted" into the office. I don't think the manager would have let her just walk away.
Edit: and I'm sure she thought that since she hadn't done anything wrong nothing bad would happen to her. What did happen is so bizarre as to defy reason. With hindsight, yes she should have screamed and yelled and put up a fight. But how could she have know that at the time?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I was wondering about that -- there's the employee handbook saying it's never okay to strip search an employee, there was a memo sent out about prank calls, and there was a voice message sent out about prank calls, I don't remember when but I think it was right before this happened. Could that be enough to absolve them of responsibility? I mean, they could argue that the managers were acting on their own directly against all company policy. Is it their responsibility anyway? I don't know where that line is, if it exists at all.
Edit: Legally, I mean. As far as morally, I think they all have responsibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But how could she have know that at the time?
That's why we need education. Do not go anywhere with a civilian attempting to escort you somewhere you don't want to go, with certain exceptions (store detectives have that authority in most states, and schools have some authority as well). Otherwise, just don't do it. This needs to be taught and made a meme, just as we've changed views on kids taking rides with strangers.
quote:there's the employee handbook saying it's never okay to strip search an employee, there was a memo sent out about prank calls, and there was a voice message sent out about prank calls, I don't remember when but I think it was right before this happened. Could that be enough to absolve them of responsibility?
I doubt it - not if her lawyer is at all competent.
Generally, employers are liable for the torts of their employees conducted in the course of their duties. This is called "respondet superior.
"Course of their duties" even applies to things done that are against company policies. I think this manager was on duty. She was certainly relying on her authority as manager, she was in the store. Slam dunk, I think. The other guy was brought in by the manager; I don't think the fact he doesn't work for McD's saves him.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Good. Thanks, Dag.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm assuming the managers worked for them (I'm not sure what would happen if it were a franchise situation).
The article referred to it as a "McDonald's-owned store", so I'm guessing not a franchise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good, thanks, KQ.
I'm having trouble going back and reading that article too carefully. It sickens me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I haven't re-read it, either. I just noticed that the first time.
I wouldn't go back just for that either. Once was enough. *shudders*
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Do not go anywhere with a civilian attempting to escort you somewhere you don't want to go
This includes when your boss wants to speak to you in the office? I really just can't see an 18 year old putting up a fight when her manager wants her to go into the office for a chat. And at that time, she had no way of knowing it was anything else.
Edit: and it was a female manager- female employee situation as well. I could see a young woman being cautious about being alone with a male manager, but in this case I just don't see how she could have realized there was a problem until her options were already limited.
More edits: "trust your gut" or "trust your instincts" probably wouldn't have helped either -- the manager wouldn't have been giving off creepy signals because she had no creepy intent. The employee probably had reason to trust her based on previous interactions as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm getting two stories here. Either she was told she was about to be searched on orders of police - which is a situation we should teach about - or she was brought into the office as part of her employment and then told to strip.
Either way, she should have been taught to stop it before she was uncovered.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I didn't get that she was told she'd be searched until after she was locked in the office.
But I'm not going to read it again right now, so I would defer to anyone providing a quote to the contrary.
And I agree that even locked in she should have refused to take off her clothes. I just think it would have been a lot harder to get away at that point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:More edits: "trust your gut" or "trust your instincts" probably wouldn't have helped either -- the manager wouldn't have been giving off creepy signals because she had no creepy intent. The employee probably had reason to trust her based on previous interactions as well.
I'm not fond of "trust your gut" nor am I advocating it. Intuition is not trust your gut.
At some point before she exposed her underware, she intuited that something was wrong.
If we taught these types of things explicitly, she would know this.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I do advocate "trust your gut." If something or someone is creeping you out, be cautious. I just don't think it would have worked here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I agree that even locked in she should have refused to take off her clothes. I just think it would have been a lot harder to get away at that point.
True. I doubt the guy on the phone could have gotten them to use force at that point in the conversation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do advocate "trust your gut." If something or someone is creeping you out, be cautious. I just don't think it would have worked here.
I think we're using different names for the same thing. I strongly advocate the middle sentence of your post here.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*curious* Dag, what do you mean by "trust your gut"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just kind of acting on a whim because it seems good.
Intuition I see as saying "Here's a situation." Generally, your conscious mind should decide what you do when you become aware of that situation.
The intuition might be ill-defined: "Something is not right here" or "Person X is dangerous." The decision to act is a choice of your mind, made based on the information you have. It might not be fully explainable, but it's a plan arrived at by the conscious mind.
To me, trusting your gut skips the second step.
I have no idea where I came up with this distinction.
Posted by Grisha (Member # 6871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: So...if I was ever asked to strip-search someone, I know to refuse. I would need to be deputized before I could possible do this, and over the phone is not s.o.p.
Actually you'd need to have gone through special training on search proseigures, be authorized law enforment personel, be the same gender as the person being searched, and have either a warrant for the search, or probable cause.
Or just have the person's freely given consent.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I didn't say you act on just the gut feeling. Just trust that if something seems wrong it very well might be.
You still have to question your prejudices though. To give the obvious example, if you're always nervous around black people it might have more to do with an unconscious prejudice than actual intuition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Very true about the prejudices. But on the other hand, prejudices can cause trouble the other way if a black person is actually tripping the intuitive alarm.
Very sticky stuff.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm also convinced the managers knew this was wrong. At minimum, they had all the information to reach that conclusion.
I'm not sure I agree. The managers invovled all seemed to be low level management. These are people who are promoted from working the cash register to being in charge for the night shift. This level of management typically gets very little training. They certainly don't get phone messages or memos from national headquarters sent to them directly. Those messages are sent to The Manager, not these little guys.
I think that they certainly knew that physical and sexual abuse of the employees was wrong, but it didn't start that way. The caller started by asking the managers to detain the person, then to ask them to remove a jacket. I suspect that these managers could easily have believed it was within their rights to do these things, particularly when instructed to do so by the police.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Perhaps. I find the very thought intensely depressing, though.
I'm going to have to write a civics book.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm with you on the intensely depressing.
But I think Rabbit is right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If that's true, I hope the lesson will be impressed on them most forcefully.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
First, where can I pre-order that civics book.
Second, I agree with Rabbit. This guy on the phone was a master manipulater. I've taken sales courses that teach how to do what he did, but instead of ending up with some naked abused woman, you end up selling things people don't need. If you take it slow and easy, you can get away with murder.
If you say, "we are going to strip search you in this room then have you do perverted poses for a while" nobody would volunteer. But you say, "Bring them into the back office for a moment. Take their coat. Search it. Take her bag. Search it. Find any tampons? Birth control pills. They try to hide drugs in them. Set them somewhere in plain view so she knows she's in trouble." Of course now the girl is mortified. From there, bit by bit, one piece of clothes at a time, one bit of dignity at a time, they tear the people apart.
Third, doesn't this show how Abu-Graib could have happened a lot easier than we thought?
Finally, doesn't this show how suicide bombers are created? People who do not question authority are taken one step at a time until they find themselves standing at a restaurant with explosives around thier waist believing they have no options but to follow orders.
That is the secret to it all, remove options. That is the goal and the strategy. One by one, remove the options.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm not sure I agree. The managers invovled all seemed to be low level management.
Doesn't matter. If you have supervisory responsibilities of any kind, you should undergo management training and that should include what you are allowed to do and not do to employees.
Any company that doesn't adequately train its managers in basic employment law and worker's rights is only asking to be sued later.
*shakes head* My mom seriously needs to continue to build up her HR consulting business and I need to keep working with her - that's one of the things she does is come in and do basic management training. This is a perfect example of why such a thing is necessary.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You are right Belle, but what should happen and what does happen are not the same thing.
In my current faculty position, I have supervisory responsibility for a number of people. I've been through orientations that discussed sexual harassment but never have I been specifically told that I have no right to search my graduate students bags or pockets. I've never been told I can't detain or strip search people. I'm not sure if I have the right to search my students desks or not. In fact, none of these issues have been addressed in any of the jobs I've held.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think that they certainly knew that physical and sexual abuse of the employees was wrong, but it didn't start that way. The caller started by asking the managers to detain the person, then to ask them to remove a jacket. I suspect that these managers could easily have believed it was within their rights to do these things, particularly when instructed to do so by the police.
I agree to an extent, but I think it's more than just the caller being manipulative by leading the managers step by step starting with requests that actually may have made sense.
Here's what I think.
I think the majority of the managers involved truly did want to do what was right, but when faced with requests that contradicted their own sense of morality and ethics, they convinced themselves that what they were doing was right and that they did indeed have the authority to do so.
For example, how could anyone possibly think that forcing the suspect to engage in a sexual act has anything to do with shoplifting? Why didn't Nix question the caller? I think it's because he already convinced himself into believing that the girl was a criminal and deserved what has happening to her. He forced himself to believe that the caller was a person of authority. He forced himself to believe that he now held the power to enforce the caller's requests. He forced himself to believe these things because he didn't want to believe that what he was doing was wrong. And once he forced himself to believe it, he no longer questioned it. It's amazing what people can make themselves believe if they truly want to believe something. No one wants to believe that they are capable of raping someone, so their minds create their own version of reality, one that their consciences can accept. A world that says that even though the strip search showed that the girl did not possess the stolen money, it's still okay to detain her and make further requests of her.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Now I'm curious. Under what circumstances is it legal to strip-search someone? Innocent until proven guilty says the law-system. Is strip-searching someone treating them as though they are guilty?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Not necessarily. I don't know the specifics of the law, but one example is airports. They have an incredible license to search people without any reference to guilt/innocence.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
True, but technically you have a right to refuse. You can't get on the plane, then, of course. But it's still informed consent. You go to the airport knowing you will be searched.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And as an airline passanger, what are my rights? At what point is the right to strip-search being abused?
If I am to be subject to a strip search, do I get to demand it be done by a female? Do they search body cavities?
Edit: And where am I told that if I get on a plane I forfeit my right to bodily privacy?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
There's a sign by the security checkpoint, I think. Also, even when they're just using a wand to search for metal, they always have a person of the same sex do the searching.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Does that mean they are required to have an officer of each sex at every checkpoint?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Good point, Shigosei. I hadn't thought of that.
bev - I think so, yes.
Still, the law doesn't require a guilty verdict in order to search a person. If an officer gets a warrant to search someone's house (or their body), that doesn't mean the person is guilty, it just means that the officer has presented some sort of reasonable justification that evidence pertinent to the case in question may be found.
I don't know what the requirements for a strip search would be. I suspect they would depend on the circumstances.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
If there isn't an officer of your gender at that checkpoint they can detain you until one arrives or (more likely if they'll be doing a strip search) take you somewhere else where there is one.
A couple pages back someone mentioned the us or them mentality that could also be a motivation for some of these managers. It reminded me of a quote from the book Catch-22 (an excellent book on abuse of power in general among other things).
quote: "What would they do to me," he asked in confidential tones," if I refused to fly them?" "We'd probably shoot you," ex-PFC Wintergreen replied. "WE?" Yossarian cried in surprise. "What do you mean WE? Since when are you on their side?" "If you're going to be shot, whose side do you expect me to be on?" ex-PFC Wintergreen retorted."
I'm appalled by this article, as I think anyone would be, but I can't help but wonder how I would have responded. I'd like to think that I don't feel confident enough in my personal authority to strip-search someone. I'd likely say, that the police could search her, it would be more professional that way, and it would be none of my implication. On the other hand, I can see the logic in checking their pockets before the police got there to be sure they didn't ditch the evidence. I'm just not sure how far I could be persuaded to go before my moral sense kicked in.
Even at the beginning of the article, I wasn't overly concerned, because even though the girl was strip-searched, and that clearly wasn't right, the manager was another woman, and she thought she was doing it to spare the girl an arrest and detainment at the police department. As someone who had never been in trouble before, the girl was probably eager to prove her innocence, was certain that it would be proven, and was eager to avoid any 'official' involvement, reasoning that if she proved she was innocent then, that the incident would pass, but that if she was taken into the PD, then it would go on her 'official' record. I know when I was younger I had an unhealthy fear of having an 'official' record, even though I had never done anything wrong.
I think the point at which I would have been extremely concerned, and stopped responding, was the point at which a non-employee, non-police officer, of the opposite gender was called in to take over. If back-up was necessary, I think a logical person would demand that it be a police officer, or at the very least it would make sense if it were another employee on duty, but to call someone else and involve them in the situation, and his agreement to join in, is just crazy. I also don't understand why they didn't give the girl's clothes back. If they had been searched and clearly didn't contain anything stolen, then there's no logical reason for her not to put them back on.
So I can understand, and might even be convinced myself (though I like to think I'd be smarter than that) to act as the manager did initially and search the girl, and detain her. I like to think that I would not have made her strip, or if I had that I would have given her her clothing back after it was clear that she wasn't hiding anything. And I definitely would have called the police before I called 'a friend' to 'help' with the situation.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
What I think is scary is the map showing 70 known cases of this hoax.
So even though it may take 10 attempts before finding a willing manager, there are still a lot of people out there that this hoax works on.
Could just this one person be responsible for all these? I doubt it, so does that mean there are multiple people behind these hoaxes?
Is this publicity going to spawn a bunch of copycat pranks? Restaurants and managers were warned before and yet it still happened. If even more people attempt this type of prank in the future, will the results be any different?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm a bit concerned that there will be a rash of copy cat crimes now that this has hit the news.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I’m not missing it.But she had already surrendered her clothes at that point, right? (Edit: i reread it, and it appears she had not surrendered her clothes. this confirms the analysis - at that point she should have left.)
If not, she should have just left.
As difficult as that it, that's what she should have done. Again, I'm not blaming her for not doing it.
It’s very difficult to argue with an authority figure when you aren’t sure of your standing. If you’re wrong, you end up in a lot more trouble. Another experience I had was riding with a friend in an older, not so nice, POS car. We got pulled over and had done nothing wrong that I knew. The Officer asked everyone for his or her driver’s license. At the time my (hehe) contrary nature flared and I asked what was the reason for pulling us over. My knowledge of law isn’t extensive, but I believed he was required to tell us. (I also thought that the signs about construction zones meant to reduce speed when workers are present. It doesn’t. It means fines double when workers present, reduced speed is all the time.) But to call the bluff against someone in authority without good knowledge is difficult and sometimes dangerous. Everyone in the car yelled at me to just give him my DL. So I did. It’s a bit different than being strip searched, but the same “go along or it will be worse” thought is there.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yeah, McDonald's is toast in this. I'm assuming the managers worked for them (I'm not sure what would happen if it were a franchise situation). If so, they are responsible for everything the managers did.
If the managers are convicted, it's hard to see McD's having any way out of liability.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: [QUOTE] Any company that doesn't adequately train its managers in basic employment law and worker's rights is only asking to be sued later.
I don’t agree with McDonalds being responsible. In the eyes of the law they may be, but outside the technical nitty gritty are they? There is only so much you can do to insure that someone doesn’t do something bad. If they have made a reasonable effort then what else can be done? It seems to me it is assigning the responsibility to a corporation that should be a personal responsibility. It’s a tendency we have with the government also. Somebody else is given the responsibility so we don’t have it, and if something bad happens then it’s his or her fault. Does anyone have a means of controlling adults to the degree they can not do anything wrong? It should be a balance between the corporation providing the means and the person following the guidelines. Acting on the guidelines comes down to the person. I’ve been fortunate to do some traveling and usually I find the laws not so enabling. If you take the safety off the fan in your car and get hurt, well you shouldn’t have taken the safety off unless you knew what you were doing. It seems we have the idea that someone should stop us from doing anything unintelligent.
I think there’s no question that there will be copy cat crimes. But as it hits the media people become aware of it. How many old people have been scammed out of their savings by Cons? How many email do each of you get a day that are phishing? Have you ever received the letter (real letters) about the guy who has a ga-billion dollars and just needs your help to get it done, so give him your bank info? Scams and Cons have always been there. This is just a sick one. I have found some of the online games etc. to be an amazing thing. If you want to see the true nature of people, give them an almost perfect mask and turn them lose. Some players are so noble and kind it’s enough to bring a tear to your eye, and others are so heinous and cruel you have to question if they are demon possessed. There is a term that has come to describe some of it ‘griefer’. The caller is a griefer outside the game.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Everybody look at that link.. It's important stuff! The situations dealt with are different than what's in the video, but if the people in that article knew about it, there's a higher chance they would have known what was going on was wrong. And they could have said NO.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm a bit concerned that there will be a rash of copy cat crimes now that this has hit the news.
There may already have been; I read about this last year.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: It’s very difficult to argue with an authority figure when you aren’t sure of your standing. If you’re wrong, you end up in a lot more trouble.
I know. That's why I advocate actually teaching how to do it.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I've only skimmed this article, but I wonder why anybody would search the victim themselves. How could you be sure you were doing it right? I can understand telling the victim that the two of you have to go to the police station or wait there for the police to arrive, but...
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
Katarain
Thanks for the link. It looks informative. I don’t feel any regret with the incident, and in hindsight have to say it’s a hard position for him also. If he says he pulled us over because it’s a nice area and we looked like ...erm… undesirables then someone will try to sue or complain. So he tries to do it with giving us something to screw him with. I understand why he pulled us over and don’t begrudge him that, even though it erked me at the time. If prevention is part of his job, then he was trying to prevent something. I think it’s a bit hypocritical to want an officer to prevent people robbing and then be pissed about preventative actions.
Dagonee
I’m not sure how you would teach someone to do this. I think you can give them specific knowledge about a situation, but how do you teach what seems to be common sense? I still believe that life has become more complicated than everyone can deal with. Figuring out taxes and laws and jobs and all the other complications, do they have the time, interest, or capacity to learn it? I don’t know what the law is about the strip search. I don’t have specific knowledge but I can interpolate from what I do know and say, “Hmmm methinks something be a wee bit odd.” I applaud the efforts to teach people, and help them understand, but is it practical and does it work? They had an employee manual that specifically said this was not acceptable and none of them used that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, I think it could be taught, and I think it could be taught in a way that helps a great many people.
Knowing the right, instead of just knowing a little about it, would help.
As would teaching people how to assert themselves. Many times, people don't agree, but they also don't disagree. So they just kind of ride along with what's happening.
Simply teaching people how to stop the ride would be a huge help. And it can be taught.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You don't refuse searches because you have anything to hide (although that is also a good reason), but because it is your constitutional RIGHT to refuse searches. I will always refuse searches, no matter what. I won't physically resist, but I will make my verbal refusal very clear.
You don't have to give up your rights just because you respect that the cop is trying to prevent crime or catch people who are committing crimes. And you shouldn't.
If the people in that article had seen the video that you can get from that website, I guarantee that if they were listening at all, they would have been able to determine that things were very wrong with that caller--even though it didn't address searches at work specifically.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
Dagonee
How would you teach them? I haven’t really searched but there are things available such as the link Katarain provided. How do you get them to avail themselves of it?
Katarain
Hide? Surely I must seem pure as water from deep under ground that really good beer could be made from. I have mixed feelings on the exercise. If it is something that bothers me enough I would certainly do it. I also think that not exercising it can tend it to be ignored. But part of me still question whether it makes things better or worse. Individual rights vs. better ?safety? You could have a ‘perfectly’ safe society if no one had any rights. A tough balance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Remember the book "The Wave"??? It was a awsome book and it reminds me of this situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How would you teach them? I haven’t really searched but there are things available such as the link Katarain provided. How do you get them to avail themselves of it?
I don't know. I'm pretty sure there's no curriculum available right now.
For sure, you teach practical applications of rights. Who can search you when, and who you can resist.
For the rest, it would be some form of assertiveness training.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
I think it would be great if you could get people to go and learn.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: I also think that not exercising it can tend it to be ignored. But part of me still question whether it makes things better or worse. Individual rights vs. better ?safety? You could have a ‘perfectly’ safe society if no one had any rights. A tough balance.
I am 100% of the belief that it is BETTER to have individual rights protected over better safety. I don't buy into this idea that it's okay to give up our freedoms because we're afraid of terrorism, for instance. I don't believe we need the government to take care of us that badly. I like our warrant system very much.
So yes, I think it is our duty to exercise our rights--ESPECIALLY when we haven't done anything wrong. Refusing to give up our rights is our way to indicate that we do not agree with them being taken away (re: the patriot act). That way lies a police state. Law-abiding citizens need to exercise their rights especially because this notion that only a criminal would refuse a search and if you don't have anything to hide you should just submit is a false one. Guilt can NOT be automatically assumed by our refusal.
Refusing doesn't mean a less-safe society anyway. If the police officer has probable cause he has the right to search (am I right?). Random searches because you look funny/scary/foreign/young/whatever are not his legal right--and you don't have to--and shouldn't have to submit.
In my opinion, refusing to be searched makes things better, or at the very least helps to keep them from getting worse.
The way things are going now, people are so scared they forget how important it is to protect their rights and consequently submit to all sorts of violations of privacy. I'm scared that one day we won't have any rights left. And those of us who refuse to go along with it will end up jailed or worse. Perhaps I'm an alarmist.
Edit: to clear up weird and confusing grammar. Still have some odd spots, I think...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it would be great if you could get people to go and learn.
My goal would be to make it part of a civics class.
Each time a citizen exercises a right in an appropriate manner, the effect is beneficial for other citizens, not just the citizen.
Sometimes the benefit might not outweigh the benefit of voluntarily ceding that right in that situation. For example, I would probably let police officers come through my house if they were looking for a fugitive. But I wouldn't be likely to consent to police searching my car after they pulled me over, even though I had nothing to hide.
The reason the mere exercise of rights is beneficial is because it underscores the seriousness of these issues to government authority. It helps them not take it for granted and may help, over time and in the aggregate, reduce the number of attempts to circumvent those rights.
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
Katarain
Fee Fie Foe Fum, methinks me smells liberterium?
I agree with what you’ve said. I tend to be an individualist and find it restrictive when laws are made for the lowest common denominators and when I’m treated like one. If faced with a choice I would have to choose as you’ve said. I’m something of an idealist and a realist, a hopeful pessimist? I want to believe that all policeman are good and kind and have our best interest in mind, but I’ve seen to many examples to believe it. And given that it is not an ideal world then protecting your individual rights becomes a necessity, or just like you said, people after power and control would take as much as people would allow them. Sometimes I just imagine what we could do as a race if we could cooperate without worrying about the next guy taking more or doing something screwy. I’m curious, what have you developed your opinion from?
Dagonee
quote: The reason the mere exercise of rights is beneficial is because it underscores the seriousness of these issues to government authority. It helps them not take it for granted and may help, over time and in the aggregate, reduce the number of attempts to circumvent those rights.
This is also a good point. I think the basis of what you say is valid. I still don’t think you would get people to go to the class. Maybe if it was a class in high school or something. The only negative thing I see in it is the people who think it entitles them to do something wrong. People tend to do what they feel they can get away with. Would this make them think they can get away with more?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not if the rights are taught correctly.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
What happened to my post? I typed out a long post and poof its gone.
I disagree with the poster above who suggested that Nix didn't want to do what he did. I think he absolutely wanted to do what he did. He walked in, found a nude teenage girl and a voice on the phone making evil suggestions. I think he wanted to do and figured it was as good a time as any. The second man that was called in was faced with the exact same situation - a nude teenage girl- and he refused to participate. Nix should have refused, heck his then girlfriend should have refused once it came to the poor girl removing the last layers of her clothing.
This thing really frightens me. What has happened to common sense? What has happened to our sense of right and wrong? I think many of these people didn't care if it was right or wrong, specifically when the caller was asking them to have the victim preform sexual acts etc. That so clearly crosses the line it sickens me that people continued to go along with it. I feel so much for the victims, the real victims. Those on the phone with the caller stopped being victims when the crossed the line between decency and sexual abuse. I am really frightened that people in our country have become so debased and desensitized that they no longer know where the line of right and wrong is.
Now I need to go watch SpongeBob or something to get this horrible story out of my mind.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I strongly lean towards agreeing with you, Wendy.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I am really frightened that people in our country have become so debased and desensitized that they no longer know where the line of right and wrong is
What frightens me is that I do think people know where the basic line of right and wrong is, they just find a way to justify doing what they know is wrong.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
It's pretty amazing how irresponsible McDonalds comes across as in the article.
It takes serious arrogance and nerve to accuse the victim of "not leaving the office naked" and of "not screaming" while she's being molested.
This reminds me of that ridiculous lawsuit a couple of years ago, where some fool spilled hot coffee on her lap and sued McD's for millions. I read that the jury also thought the suit was ridiculous. Then the lawyers for McDonalds stupidly pointed out that out of millions of coffees served only a few thousand people received third degree burns.
-ron
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think deep down inside the managers who participated in the degrading searches really did enjoy doing them. We all have ugly impulses and sometimes they just need an excuse to come out and play.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The only distinction between the power wielded by "Office Scott" and the power wielded by a "legitimate" authority figure is that the legit figure can ultimately use force or violence with the sanction of society.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)