Mall bans unsupervised kids/teens

[MrsPete]

The Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem, NC has just instituted a new policy that goes into effect on March 5th. On Fridays and Saturdays, anyone under the age of 18 MUST be in the company of a parent or guardian after 6pm. The punishment for not heeding the new rule...BANNED from the mall.

Unruly teen behavior was the catalyst.

Your thoughts?

How are they going to enforce the ban? I'm not talking about the rule, just the ban.

Sure, they can kick Johnny out today, but two weeks from now when he comes back, they're not going to know that they kicked him out already. And do they really want to ban him from coming back to shop in future years when he actually has money?

I'm not against the rule, but kids are smart enough to know that a ban has no teeth. You shouldn't make rules that you can't enforce.


And a completely different question: What about the 16 and 17 year olds who are employed at the mall?

 

[pezheadmeg]

They keep track of who's banned. A digital camera becomes a friend.

I actually had a boss who came into the store as one of the top execs. He walks into store security and sees his own son's picture on the board of kids banned. Said son was allowed back in the store when Dad was working, but he got a major earful for behavior that got him banned.

 

[golfgal]

I can't believe how bad some of your guys' malls are! There are no teen bans at our mall. As a matter of fact, we were at the mall today and there were a ton of teens. We had snow day here in Florida. The kids are well behaved in the mall here. It doesn't matter what age you are, if you are just standing around blocking the walkways, security will tell you to move on. Security is very visible in our mall and they are actually doing something. We also always have police officers at the mall on the weekends so there is nothing happening. The adults get on my nerves at the mall more than the teens.

Actually, the mall that does this restriction is great .

 

[LoraJ]

I have a lot of fond memories as a teenager hanging out at the mall with my friends. We usually did buy stuff though, and there were never a lot of us and we behaved. I think it is sad that well-behaved teens have to be punished because of a bunch of morons.

Now I wish they would have this rule at our local mall. It would probably be impossible though since it also acts as a passageway from the trains to my neighborhood. Although I guess they could make the teens walk all the way around the long block.

Last night, DH was on is way home from work and was going to do some shopping and get food from the food court. He heard a lot of screaming coming from the food court and people were running down the escalators. He high-tailed it out of there. On a local message board, someone who was up at the food court said a bunch of the teens up there started fighting and throwing chairs. Their were children around, I hope no one got hurt. They said there were 4 very young female security guards trying to get a handle on the situation but there was not much that they could do.

I try to avoid that mall as much as I can on Friday and Saturday nights. I just do not feel comfortable when there are large groups of teens milling around with nothing to do but cause problems.

 

[jme829]

Actually, the mall that does this restriction is great .

The last time we went there was a security guard posted at every possible entrance to the mall including outside all of the stores that open into the mall (Sears, etc...). and they DO check ID's....I have seen them do it many times!

 

[ncmickeyluvr]

How are they going to enforce the ban? I'm not talking about the rule, just the ban.

Sure, they can kick Johnny out today, but two weeks from now when he comes back, they're not going to know that they kicked him out already. And do they really want to ban him from coming back to shop in future years when he actually has money?

I'm not against the rule, but kids are smart enough to know that a ban has no teeth. You shouldn't make rules that you can't enforce.


And a completely different question: What about the 16 and 17 year olds who are employed at the mall?[/QUOTE]


The Winston-Salem newspaper says that 16 and 17 year olds who are employed at the mall will receive Mall Identification cards. For the ones that are banned, I don't think they are meaning to ban them for life....just discourage them from coming back while they are still minors. The Northlake Mall in Charlotte has the same policy and it's done wonders. I'm sure that some kids are still coming back once they've been banned but MOST won't. That in itself clears up most of the problems.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

The group that owns the Jefferson City and Columbia malls did that. I notice a huge difference between those malls and the one where I live now.

I will never forget a couple of weeks ago the issues I saw with groups of teens. I was in the coffee shop when I saw two girls walk in, pour themselves a drink out of the creamer/milk left out for customers which they then dumped the coacoa powder and nutmeg in, and then leave. They used up all the creamer that was left out for paying customers and did not buy anything. (They were using the water cups.) They basically stole from the shop.

A bit later I went into Yankee Candle and the woman working there was telling me how a group of teens came in, were becoming loud and obnoxious in front of her store and blocking the way for paying customers, and then damaged some of the merchandise. It seemed like that night stuff like that was happening all the time.

No, not all teens do that. My friends and I would go on occasion to eat at the food court or to shop. We always bought something, even if it was just food. We were never loud and sure, if they had enacted that when we were younger we would have been disappointed, but is there any wonder why they do? Too many parents are using malls as babysitting services and allowing youngsters to roam unsupervise. They are scaring paying customers away from shops, stealing, and doing damage. You can't blame the malls for trying to curttail the behavior.

 

[N.Bailey]

Guys, the Constitution does not give us rights. Our rights come from our creator. We are all created equal - people of every age, race, religion, creed have the same rights. We are born with those rights - we don't achieve them at a specific age. The only place where that has been altered by the Constitution are where exceptions are explicitly made in amendments.

The Constitution was created to limit the government, not to create the rights of the people. The only reason that some rights are actually listed is because the writers thought them to be the ones most likely to be abused by the government in the future, so a "Bill of Rights" was created as the first set of "amendments" to the Constitution.

So, our rights are almost boundless. Yes, private institutions also have rights, but don't pretend for a second that their rights are the only ones that matter to the Justice Department. And, even when private institutions are allowed by the courts to discriminate, it is still discrimination. It is still an action driven by prejudice toward a group of people. That is not something that I will support...

I have little doubt others have already spoken on much of what you said here, but I just couldn't read this post and not respond.

Perhaps you should dig into some case law before making some of these statements. The courts have ruled many times that while students are protected by the Constitution, certain rights can indeed be suppressed in our public school systems. This is a PUBLIC entity.

Isn’t it also an oxymoron to suggest that the Bill of Rights is not meant to give us rights, but rather, to protect us from our government? Are they not one in the same? How can you apply logic to such statements?

As for being born with these rights, yes that’s true. We most definitely are if we’re born in this country, but perhaps you should also research US history. Women didn’t have the same rights as men, and black people certainly didn’t have the same rights as the their white counterparts when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution of this great nation. So it’s silly to suggest that these rights came from our creator. A white male could say that, but anyone else? Hardly!

Our rights are nowhere near boundless, either. We most certainly are not entitled the right to take another person’s life. We are not entitled to lay our hands upon another in anger. We do not have the right to rob a bank or steal from whomever just because we want something, nor does one have the right to rape another, commit arson, and a whole litany of other things. Our rights will NEVER be boundless.

IMO, a private entity should have the right to as much bigotry as the entity sees fit. However, they should be prepared for any consequences that might ensure because of such acts.

 

[N.Bailey]

Sorry, this is a common misconception (that our rights come from the Constitution). The Constitution does not give us rights - it stops the government from taking them away. Women in the middle east have the same rights, but their government is not restricted. The result, their rights are abused every day.

Our rights do not flow from the Constitution, they are protected by it. Just as we all know right from wrong, but laws are put in place to force us to do the right thing, even when it might be less than convenient. But, whether the laws exist or not, what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. These things stand eternal, though societal mores change and enforcement ebbs and flows...

You have got to be kidding me. The Constitution of the United States does most indeed assure us of our rights. This is what a democracy is based on. People who do not live under a Democratic banner do not have the same inalienable rights as you or I. These rights ARE guaranteed under our Constitution and yes, protected by it as well.

 

[N.Bailey]

Um, no you haven't. You have just spouted off about it being unconstitutional and have not backed up one thing you have said.

What she said!

 

[N.Bailey]

You don't have a right to a peaceful time anywhere. I am willing to bet that you deal with much worse on you average summer day at WDW. The difference is your attitude, not theirs...

I suggest reading the Preamble to the United State Constitution and upon completion of that, looking up the definition to, "tranquility."

What the hell, I'll do the work for you.
tranquility

Quick definitions (tranquility)

▸ noun: a state of peace and quiet
▸ noun: a disposition free from stress or emotion

http://onelook.com/?w=tranquility&ls=a

 

[N.Bailey]

Read that again - the pursuit of happiness - not happiness itself. Happiness comes from within. If a few teens running around in the mall wrecks that for you, it has already eluded you.

And stop bringing up their "rights". That has been capitulated. Or maybe you just like to pretend that it wasn't so you can feel better because you aren't happy?

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Planogirl]

That bit about tranquility will only work if you can get grownups to be quiet too. There always seem to be some loud over 18 year olds around.

 

[N.Bailey]

That bit about tranquility will only work if you can get grownups to be quiet too. There always seem to be some loud over 18 year olds around.

DisneyBamaFan said we didn't have the "right" to peace. That's simply not true. We do have the right to peace, but that doesn't = peace and quiet.

 

[Planogirl]

DisneyBamaFan said we didn't have the "right" to peace. That's simply not true. We do have the right to peace, but that doesn't = peace and quiet.

Peace to me is a state of mind. Some people probably feel perfectly at peace in a noisy congested place. Me, not so much.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

DisneyBamaFan said we didn't have the "right" to peace. That's simply not true. We do have the right to peace, but that doesn't = peace and quiet.

LOL - you guys are great! I was actually responding to a PP who said that she had a right to happiness. The pursuit of happiness is a far cry from finding happiness, and few will ever have the government find it for them...

 

[MrsPete]

They keep track of who's banned. A digital camera becomes a friend.

I actually had a boss who came into the store as one of the top execs. He walks into store security and sees his own son's picture on the board of kids banned. Said son was allowed back in the store when Dad was working, but he got a major earful for behavior that got him banned.

But how does that work? Security person spies teens loitering around the food court -- does he have access to those pictures with him at that moment, or does he take them back to see if they're already banned? Is the punishment worse for a kid who's already been banned? I'm just thinking that the ban portion of the law is not effective.

Great story about the boss' kid. Talk about wrong place, wrong time. In THAT PARTICULAR UNIQUE CASE, I see that the ban did punish the offender.

The Northlake Mall in Charlotte has the same policy and it's done wonders.

Really? It's not very effective. About a month ago I dropped my 15-year old and her 15-year old friend off at that very mall while I did some errands in Charlotte. It was on a Friday afternoon/evening, the very time when I suppose the security people would've been searching for teens. They were there alone for a couple hours -- they were shopping for dresses for a semi-formal dance, and my daughter DID BUY a dress that evening. Her friend put one on hold and returned the next day with her mom to buy it. I did my errands and then returned to meet them, and we all had dinner in the food court.

We don't go to that area all that often, and I had no idea there was a rule about teens there. If I had known, I never would've dropped them off. Since I had other business in that area (but not in the mall), I wouldn't have been able to return to pick them up for a few hours, so we would've really been in some trouble if they'd been caught.

 

[MrsPete]

You have got to be kidding me. The Constitution of the United States does most indeed assure us of our rights. This is what a democracy is based on. People who do not live under a Democratic banner do not have the same inalienable rights as you or I. These rights ARE guaranteed under our Constitution and yes, protected by it as well.

Yes, the Constitution assures us of quite a few rights . . . but none of those rights give us permission to enter private property and shop.

 

[FireDancer]

Yes, the Constitution assures us of quite a few rights . . . but none of those rights give us permission to enter private property and shop.

That is kind of the crux of the situation right there.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution neither grants nor restricts rights. It merely sets out the goals of the document. How does a government ensure tranquility, that is a state of mind. The document does, however, spell out the process for declaring war which is not very tranquil.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

That is kind of the crux of the situation right there.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution neither grants nor restricts rights. It merely sets out the reason for the document. How does a government ensure tranquility, that is a state of mind. The document does, however, spell out the process for declaring war which is not very tranquil.

Correct on all points. You are too rational for this board...