• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Nell

Unending melancholy
Bold Member!
Target is facing a lawsuit filed by a mother who says her son committed suicide after he was forced to take part in a humiliating disciplinary event in front of co-workers and customers.

The suit claims 22-year-old Graham A. Gentles, a former cashier at the retail chain's Pasadena store, was humiliated when he was subjected to what the family's attorney called a "walk of shame," a ritual during which the employee is paraded around the store in handcuffs.

Her son jumped to his death from the roof of the Courtyard Marriott in Monrovia on July 18, three days after he was fired.

"The only thing he said to me at that moment was, 'Mom this is the worst day of my life,'" Virginia Gentles said.

According to the complaint, police and store security met Graham Gentles immediately as he arrived for work. At the direction of two members of the store management, he was handcuffed and led before other store employees to an office, the suit states.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Target-Faces-Lawsuit-Over-Employees-Suicide-289662711.html
 
It seems excessive to me that store security handcuff the guy upon arrival to work and before he was arrested and charged with a crime. I'm assuming they suspected him of stealing, but there is the remote possibility he uttered some threat or somebody perceived one; unless there was imminent risk to the safety of others the practice doesn't sit right with me.
 
If he wasn't formally charged with a crime, then they had no business cuffing him.
 
Under normal circumstances I'd tell her she should have raised a more thick-skinned child who could cope with a bit of emotional distress without going off the deep end, but this guy has Asperger's, so this mother gets a pass on that.

If the store managers knew about the Aspie's and did this to him anyway, they should feel bad and be fired/demoted, but suing corporate seems like a blatant money-grab. But I hate the vast majority of lawsuits...
 
You would think the store would have known about his aspergers if he worked there for a length of time. Also according to the article he was punished for a confrontation that took place outside of work on his own time. To treat anyone that way in a work environment in my opinion is beyond reprehensible.

Having worked in retail for the past 16 years I have never heard of such a practice before. My condolences to the mother and the family he left behind.
 
How can they justify handcuffing this man & parading him around the store for the sole purpose of humiliating him?! He didn't steal anything, nor was he suspected of any work related wrong doing. He got into a verbal altercation with another employee months earlier, in a bar, I believe. Sounds to me like this particular Target has a few bullies on the payroll. If this walk of shame has been an ongoing thing, and there have been previous reports/complaints, and nothing was done, then they absolutely should be held responsible. What a bunch of assholes.
 
I don't agree with Target's alleged Walk of Shame policy as described in the article, but committing suicide was Mr. Gentles decision. There are a hundred things a person can do to help him/herself before committing suicide. Blaming an entity like Target is another indicator of the lawsuit-happy hairtrigger culture in this country, and why more people aren't taking responsibility for their own actions. Fuck, people, let's get this country back on track.

I do feel sorry for his family, though, and if the incident did, indeed, prompt him to commit suicide, am sorry he didn't take other measures to try to help himself. But let's stop blaming everything & everyone else because somebody had a bad day.

Agreed.

I have no problem with them suiing over the violation of his rights by the Target "authorities" however. If that's what occurred. I'd need more details about why he was cuffed in the first place, what exactly did managers call police about? Had he made threats to another coworker or something?

The article says cops and security met him at the door, then cuffed him and brought him to the back of the store? How is that in any dept's police procedure? Why would they take a suspect, handcuffed or not, further into the place? Why would they not take him into their car or directly to the station. Makes no sense.

If the store managers knew about the Aspie's and did this to him anyway, they should feel bad and be fired/demoted

Why does it matter if he had aspergers or not.

If you guys ever find yourselves with too much time on your hands and want a great prank idea, grab a red shirt, khaki colored pair of pants and a radio(the managers always carry radios) and just start walking around Target ordering workers around. They get so fuckin confused.
 
Last edited:
In other Target news ..

The company is closing all it's Canadian stores ..
Target tried to sell Canadians pure crap, the stores here are nothing at all like the stores in the US ..
The shelves are empty and the products are way over priced ..

Target will be out of Canada by April, I believe ..
 
If the manager's of this particular Target store have implemented the "walk of shame"...then Target is responsible for overseeing their manager's actions. This is a clear violation of each of these individuals basic human rights and they should win a very large lawsuit. There should be a class action suit with everyone as litigants that suffered this humiliation.
 
Because it's a disorder that causes a whole host of issues including many with interpersonal relationships and social situations making their "Walk of Shame" even more difficult for a person with Aspberger's to handle.

I realize what it is and the increased difficulties. My point was that it shouldn't matter what issues someone has going on, they shouldn't be treated like that. It's just as wrong whether someones mentally retarded or not.
 
I never like these one sided BS articles, parading and walk of shame is their one sided attempt at support, I sure would like to hear someone other than the mother and her lawyers point of view, we've all read what these ambulance chasing lawyers say, blaming 6 year olds for getting raped while trying to save a pedo from jail
Sounds to me like he was stopped at the entrance and walked to the office, if the office was at the other end of the store so be it, walking is how you get there
Sounds like he was charged, they did bring him to the police station after questioning him

, was humiliated when he was subjected to what the family's attorney called a "walk of shame," a ritual during which the employee is paraded around the store in handcuffs.

He was questioned in the office, then later taken to the police station, the suit states.
 
Sounds to me like he was stopped at the entrance and walked to the office, if the office was at the other end of the store so be it, walking is how you get there

Article says he was cuffed and led to the back of the store. My question is why? Why did he need to go to the back of the store at all? Why did cops take him there instead of straight to the police station? The whole thing sounds incredibly odd.

Sounds like he was charged, they did bring him to the police station after questioning him

"However, he was later released and never charged with any crime, according to the complaint."
 
I don't agree with Target's alleged Walk of Shame policy as described in the article, but committing suicide was Mr. Gentles decision. There are a hundred things a person can do to help him/herself before committing suicide.

This isn't necessarily a fair assessment. Particularly in males, suicide is often an extremely impulsive action made without all the tools in the toolbox. If a person has an inability to cope, it may be something they're entirely unaware of until something like this happens. We don't know that he had a history of depression (which might prompt him to get help), nor are we talking about an individual whose chronically poor financial decisions over a period of years eventually led him to off himself (those guys have plenty of time to get help). In this situation, something particularly humiliating allegedly occurred, and three days later he was dead. He was likely feeling thoroughly suicidal that entire time, and under those conditions, individuals tend to feel there is no help to be had. So, you're essentially suggesting an individual should have risen above in a way his brain may not have allowed at the time.

I get the wish that people had thicker skin. But it's just not that simple. There are all sorts of factors that might prevent a person from seeking help, and not because they're stupid or selfish or weak, but because they're broken.

Furthermore, if you've ever required psychological help, you might have discovered it's not always so easy to obtain. I've been trying to find a psychologist (for nothing pressing, just a tune-up, really) for over a week. After playing phone tag with one for days (enough to make a person fucking crazy in and of itself), I tried another whose voice mail informed me she was out until May. I'm going to try a third this morning. Wish me luck. If that doesn't work, I'm going to have to begin looking miles away, because even though I live within walking distance of a hospital, there just aren't that many psychologists in my area, turns out. Even though I live in Seattle, which has a suicide rate well above national average. And serial killers. We need psychologists around here, for christ's sake. :p

I do feel sorry for his family, though, and if the incident did, indeed, prompt him to commit suicide, am sorry he didn't take other measures to try to help himself. But let's stop blaming everything & everyone else because somebody had a bad day.

"Blame" is one way of looking at it, but the reality of the situation is that a lawsuit is often the most effective way of changing a damaging policy within an organization. Terrible PR will do it, too, but then you're placing your bet on the story taking hold within the media, and we all know how hit-and-miss that can be. This not only bolster's media attention, but it ensures that the corporation will reevaluate their practices.
 
@Athena, thanks for your imput.

Yes, it is very easy to effectively tell people to pull themselves together. But mental illness or psychological vulnerability is not something that a sufferer can just decide not to feel anymore because it's dumb to feel that way, anymore than a sufferer from the flu can decide to stop feeling like shit from that because it's dumb.

And as with the more serious physical ailments, so the most serious psychological and mental ones - eg suicidal depression - will often require medical intervention. It's simply not something someone can talk themselves out of. And when they get that low they stop listening to loved ones, and feel that seeking help is pointless - depression is itself a powerful de-motivator, one of it's most powerful symptoms being a high degree of lethargy combined with a certainty that everything is pointless.
 
Article says he was cuffed and led to the back of the store. My question is why? Why did he need to go to the back of the store at all? Why did cops take him there instead of straight to the police station? The whole thing sounds incredibly odd.



"However, he was later released and never charged with any crime, according to the complaint."
Easy, because thats procedure, security took him to the office till cops arrived
Again some jackass's version of events, like "hands up don't shoot" that never happened or all those 12 year old baby pictures of that 17 year old 6'4" 175lb thug they keep and still post
some feel facts just get in the way of sales

Again employer version or mom's lawyer BS

Graham Gentles was a loyal employee who always arrived early to his job, the suit states.
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to find a psychologist (for nothing pressing, just a tune-up, really) for over a week.
I took me over six months to get in to see the psychologist my PCP recommended. Perhaps it won't take as long to see "a" psychologist rather than "the" psychologist.

(And why was I so set on that one psych? My head was so screwed up that I didn't trust my own judgement, but I did trust my doctor's judgement.)

--Al
 
I took me over six months to get in to see the psychologist my PCP recommended. Perhaps it won't take as long to see "a" psychologist rather than "the" psychologist.

(And why was I so set on that one psych? My head was so screwed up that I didn't trust my own judgement, but I did trust my doctor's judgement.)

--Al

I'm onto #4. It's absolutely ridiculous. First, phone tag for over a week. Lost without her assistant. Second, voice mail says she's off until May. Third had four numbers listed by both my insurance company and the interwebs in general; none good. The fourth had two bad numbers listed, but when I found the third (OMG, functional!), I had to leave a voice mail. At 10:30am this morning. And I haven't gotten a call back.

If I were suicidal, I'd be dead by now. In fact, I might have offed myself immediately after trying the four bad numbers earlier. I have always been of the solid opinion that everyone should speak with a psychologist every now and again, just to get the toxins out. They shouldn't be any less important than your annual checkup or your occasional chiro readjustment. But, if it's always been this hard, I might have to change my opinion. o_O
 
Well there ya have it. Yet another fucking dirtbag attorney spouting inflammatory bullshit to twist the story in his client's favor. The entire incident probably unfolded very differently than what the papers reported. I thought something was awry when I heard real police were involved, and he was taken downtown for questioning.

Of course, the papers should have further verified aspects of the story before printing it, but as we know, real journalism died out with Walter Cronkite. Now it's all fucking sensationalism, like the National Enquirer.

Goddamn! You are 50 shades of jaded, aren't you, sir.

Lawyers use a spirited lexicon, much as I do. That spirited lexicon proficiency is your greatest hope should you be accused of a crime you didn't commit, or are dead, and want to figuratively see your family receive some justice for particularly unjust policy.

Whatever the store thought he did, it deserved one of two responses: Walked to a secluded room, questioned by police, at which point he may be placed in handcuffs and escorted out if the police thought there sufficient reason for more interrogation, OR... met at the front, handcuffed and placed into a car so that interrogation could have taken place at the precinct. There's no good reason to cuff him before interrogating him on-site.

And, Jesus H. Christ. The vast majority of lawyers are not dirtbags, but rather individuals who perform a job more difficult than you and I are capable of to the best of their ability... which is necessary to avoid mistrial.

Shake it off, Rod. ;)
 
Goddamn! You are 50 shades of jaded, aren't you, sir.

Lawyers use a spirited lexicon, much as I do. That spirited lexicon proficiency is your greatest hope should you be accused of a crime you didn't commit, or are dead, and want to figuratively see your family receive some justice for particularly unjust policy.

Whatever the store thought he did, it deserved one of two responses: Walked to a secluded room, questioned by police, at which point he may be placed in handcuffs and escorted out if the police thought there sufficient reason for more interrogation, OR... met at the front, handcuffed and placed into a car so that interrogation could have taken place at the precinct. There's no good reason to cuff him before interrogating him on-site.

And, Jesus H. Christ. The vast majority of lawyers are not dirtbags, but rather individuals who perform a job more difficult than you and I are capable of to the best of their ability... which is necessary to avoid mistrial.

Shake it off, Rod. ;)
Although defense lawyers have no issue being total dirt bags to get some asshole off, so why not call them dirtbags if that's what their job requires
Nothing wrong with calling it like it is
 
Although defense lawyers have no issue being total dirt bags to get some asshole off, so why not call them dirtbags if that's what their job requires
Nothing wrong with calling it like it is

The thinking behind those sentiments is way too simplistic, and completely fails to acknowledge the far more important bigger picture.

The very freedoms we cherish in our free societies rest upon two great pillars - our democratic rights, and the rule of law. The right to a fair trial is absolutely fundamental to the latter, without which the police would be virtually free to charge any of us with anything and have us go down for it. And we'd already be in large measure a police state then. The defence lawyers might well have to defend some real dirtbags, but that does not make them dirtbags themselves. They are in fact guarantors of our very freedoms in doing the jobs they do.

And that's because none of us can ever be falsely accused and brought to trial and convicted, without enough evidence to get past that guy. He is our guarantor against arbitrary arrest and malicious prosecution. Most potential shite of that nature doesn't even happen in the first place, because he is there to rip them apart if they try it, and everyone knows that. And where someone nevertheless is put on trial for something they havent done - if you are, for example - he would in a very personal sense be your guarantor against wrongful conviction as he tears a flawed case against you apart.

If some dirtbag gets off, that's not the fault of the defence lawyer for doing his job - that's the fault of the prosecution and/or the police for not doing theirs properly or effectively enough.

So yes, his job necessitates having to defend dirtbags quite often. Yet in doing so he is a vital pillar to all of our personal freedoms. Because he also defends the innocent who are wrongly accused, and deters all manner of malicious prosecutions. And as such deserves respect for the job he does most of the time. The rule of law itself depends upon men and women such as him doing that job.
 
If some dirtbag gets off, that's not the fault of the defence lawyer for doing his job - that's the fault of the prosecution and/or the police for not doing theirs properly or effectively enough
Or the jury. We have cases where the State proved their case, without a doubt but yet the jury still didn't convict. Off the top of my head, OJ, Casey Anthony, and Robert Blake.

Just saying, it's not always the State that drops the ball when there is an acquittal.
 
Or the jury. We have cases where the State proved their case, without a doubt but yet the jury still didn't convict. Off the top of my head, OJ, Casey Anthony, and Robert Blake.

Just saying, it's not always the State that drops the ball when there is an acquittal.

Yes, that is a very fair point.

The case of Rodney King made it big in the headlines over here. We could all see with our own eyes Los Angeles cops administering a vicious beating to an already prostrate black guy pulled over for a driving offence. It was there for all of us to see on tape. How the fuck that jury somehow managed not to see what the rest of us saw is inexplicable.

And of course the example of OJ Simpson, which you mentioned, was big news here too. And I sure think he was obviously guilty as fuck too.

It works both ways, though. Juries sometimes convict obviously innocent people too.

But the main problem is stupid and ignorant jurors, or ones who just don't give a shit.

I am in favour of reforming the jury system. Firstly, I would allow those who don't want to do it to opt out. They are unlikely to give it their all if they don't even want to be there. Secondly, I would pay those who serve well for their efforts, so that they are incentivised to be there. And thirdly, I would introduce intelligence tests so that those serving can at least demonstrate a sufficient enough level of intelligence to be able to do the task properly.
 
Last edited:
Or the jury. We have cases where the State proved their case, without a doubt but yet the jury still didn't convict. Off the top of my head, OJ, Casey Anthony, and Robert Blake.

Casey Fucking Anthony...I am still so pissed that smug fucking cunt got off. And I'm still hoping she meets genuine justice one day, hopefully sooner than later. And her attorney: what a fucking cocksucking bastard. I hope he gets what's coming to him, too.
 
Back
Top