Security Asks Woman to Remove "Hoodie"

[1stWatch]

Wilshire, UK:
A security guard at a local supermarket challenged a 58 year old teacher's assistant over a hooded coat she was wearing, referring to it as a "hoodie", a term used to describe hoodlums wearing hoods. The shop issued an apology for the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4735154.stm

[N. A. Corbier]

Wilshire, UK:
A security guard at a local supermarket challenged a 58 year old teacher's assistant over a hooded coat she was wearing, referring to it as a "hoodie", a term used to describe hoodlums wearing hoods. The shop issued an apology for the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4735154.stm

Wonder if this guy got his policies wrong, being contract, or what? I noted that BBC reported many places ban them, but not the store he was working at.

[EMTGuard]

Just an FYI, hooded sweatshirts in the UK are called "jumpers." The term "hoodie" has a negative connotation over there, unlike here.
That explains it then. I was wondering what all the fuss was about. Here the term hoodie refers to the hooded sweatshirt and not a particular class of people. Both me and my better half have hoodies that we wear regularly and refer to them as such. We are definitely not thugs.

[N. A. Corbier]

Just an FYI, hooded sweatshirts in the UK are called "jumpers." The term "hoodie" has a negative connotation over there, unlike here.

Girlfriend looked that up on Wikipedia. Our term "hood rat" also seems to come from hoodie.

[N. A. Corbier]

That explains it then. I was wondering what all the fuss was about. Here the term hoodie refers to the hooded sweatshirt and not a particular class of people. Both me and my better half have hoodies that we wear regularly and refer to them as such. We are definitely not thugs.

I personally hate hoodies, they aren't stiff enough to keep the hood hem out of my eyes. But, there are better indicators to criminal activity than a hooded sweatshirt.

You know, like a hooded sweatshirt with right symmetry all through the person's clothing, showing color affiliation.

[1stWatch]

I find the photo of the little ole lady cringing and clutching her hood to be amusing.

[1stWatch]

This goes back to tact. People don't already don't like being told what to do, especially if you're younger than they are, so making personalized comments toward someone while in a uniform is uncalled for, whether you feel the person deserved it or not. Simple statements like please and thank you would have gotten the results he wanted. Even adding compliments while speaking to her would have turned his seemingly rude action into something else.

[N. A. Corbier]

Symmetry isn't what defines gang affiliation.

My local police department reports that Chicago gangs sometimes use symmetry to denote "folks" or "peoples" affilation, using one color. Laces tied to the right or left, bandanna to the right or left pocket, one pocket hanging out, cap aligned to one side, etc.

[soontobeLEO]

My local police department reports that Chicago gangs sometimes use symmetry to denote "folks" or "peoples" affilation, using one color. Laces tied to the right or left, bandanna to the right or left pocket, one pocket hanging out, cap aligned to one side, etc.

Yes, that is common among gangs all across the United States. They have their specific color, and wear clothing in a certain way on the side that denotes their nation.

Folk Nation group members use right identifiers to distinguish themselves from the People Nation groups. Right identification is displayed by the following:

Form their hand signs with the right hand.
Wearing articles of clothing to the right, such as caps, bandannas, and belt buckles.
Wearing jewelry to the right.
Rolling up the right pant leg.

People Nation groups use left identifiers. For example they:

Form their hand signs with the left hand.
Wear their hats cocked or tilted to the left.
Roll up the left pant leg.
May untie the left shoe.
They rest their hand in the left pocket.
Wear jewelry to the left.

One of the best places to go if you are interested in learning more is http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/index.html

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes, that is common among gangs all across the United States. They have their specific color, and wear clothing in a certain way on the side that denotes their nation.

Folk Nation group members use right identifiers to distinguish themselves from the People Nation groups. Right identification is displayed by the following:

Form their hand signs with the right hand.
Wearing articles of clothing to the right, such as caps, bandannas, and belt buckles.
Wearing jewelry to the right.
Rolling up the right pant leg.

People Nation groups use left identifiers. For example they:

Form their hand signs with the left hand.
Wear their hats cocked or tilted to the left.
Roll up the left pant leg.
May untie the left shoe.
They rest their hand in the left pocket.
Wear jewelry to the left.

One of the best places to go if you are interested in learning more is http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/index.html

Hey, I remember that site. Thanks. :) A Gang Specialist from Florida also gave me a few more links, like knowgangs.com, etc.

[wisconsinite]

Personally...I think gangs are the first element in American society and culture that led ultimately to crime. Gangs date back to even the 19th Century. If Uncle Sam ever gets tough enough to abolish them, crime would plummet. Anyhoo...i'm babbling.
Getting back the the U.K. "hoodie" innuendo. That's just another fine example of U.S. and U.K. english language differences. For example, if an Englishman asks an American if he can spare a fag, the American just might pop the Englishman in the mouth. LOL

[N. A. Corbier]

Personally...I think gangs are the first element in American society and culture that led ultimately to crime. Gangs date back to even the 19th Century. If Uncle Sam ever gets tough enough to abolish them, crime would plummet. Anyhoo...i'm babbling.
Getting back the the U.K. "hoodie" innuendo. That's just another fine example of U.S. and U.K. english language differences. For example, if an Englishman asks an American if he can spare a fag, the American just might pop the Englishman in the mouth. LOL

He might anyway. English cigarettes aren't the best smelling things in the world.

[ff000525]

Personally...I think gangs are the first element in American society and culture that led ultimately to crime. Gangs date back to even the 19th Century. If Uncle Sam ever gets tough enough to abolish them, crime would plummet. Anyhoo...i'm babbling.
Getting back the the U.K. "hoodie" innuendo. That's just another fine example of U.S. and U.K. english language differences. For example, if an Englishman asks an American if he can spare a fag, the American just might pop the Englishman in the mouth. LOL

It would be nice if the Federal Goverment could figure out a way to abolish gangs, but I don't know if that could be done legally (Freedom of Choice, Expression, Speech ect.) I do know that a lot of States have laws pertaining to gangs and gang violence, even WI. Certian acts such as homocide, rape ect. carry "riders" that make jail time longer if done in a group or for a gang. I know that Little Rock, AK also passed a lot of laws pertaining to gangs such as no hanging out in groups of more than four, gang signs are public disturbance, a crime committed by a gang member- in the presence of other gang members- is automatically tagged on each gang member present.

[N. A. Corbier]

I know in Florida that there is a "Criminal Street Gang" law that indicates that any group of 3 or more persons engaged in criminal activity are a gang.

[wisconsinite]

State governments are only responding to the effect of gangs, and not the cause, when they write criminal street gang laws with catchy phrases like "tags", "riders" or "special circumstances". When riots break out in cities, the police and/or National Guard sweep in wearing full riot gear armed with tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, batons, body armor, high-pressure water hoses, and any other non-lethal goodies to restore order. Our Founding Fathers were all Christians, and wrote our Constitution based on religion. They likely had no clue how their dear country would turn out. Maybe, just maybe, we need tough enforcement tactics. Tactics to go in with force, and neutralize them. But that's "unconstitutional", right? Perhaps our precious Constitution is outdated. Outdated by 230 years! "Hold on!", you say? "That's nothing short of tyranny, communism, and dictatorship!" What are the crime statistics in China, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Phillipines, Thailand? Lesser than America's statistics, that's for sure. Laws arent doing the job. The criminal element laughs at and disregards those so-called laws. And if law enforcement is lucky enough to catch and prosecute offenders, they get sent to a prison in America that's already grossly overcrowded.

On a footnote, how did this thread evolve from talking about a hooded sweatshirt in the U.K. to talking about gangs and stuff?

[N. A. Corbier]

To us, "hoodies" are worn by gang bangers, and those who emulate the "thug" lifestyle. Logical progression.

[histfan71]

What are the crime statistics in China, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Phillipines, Thailand? Lesser than America's statistics, that's for sure.

Yes, the crime rate is lower in those countries you mentioned, and America can lower its crime rate significantly if we adopt the tactics of those governments you cite.

Those tactics will include such things as no habeas corpus, secret trials and secret police, no probable cause, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no free speech, no freedom of religion, basically the entire Bill of Rights will be tossed out the window. Any and all opposition to the government will be ruthlessly and brutally crushed. Governmental power would be placed in the hands of a sole individual, who will probably proclaim himself "Dictator for Life" if not "Emperor". I could go on and on.

Do you want to live in such a society? I sure don't. If the price for the freedoms we enjoy (and take for granted) is a comparatively high crime rate, I am willing to pay.

Wisconsinite, you sound like one of those "Sovereign Citizen" believers. Any truth to it? For more information on the "Sovereign Citizen" and other extremist organizations, click here: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=sov

[N. A. Corbier]

I always thought it was amusing that few opposed the People's Chinese Police, even though they were unarmed and rarely used force.

Why? Because if you resist them, the People's Army will back them up, and most likely with armor. They may also round up your family, since being an enemy of the people may be hereditary.

[wisconsinite]

histfan, I browsed that website you linked, and, albeit interesting...I just don't fall into that category. I am not anti-government, nor am I a racist.
To the contrary, I am pro-government. All I am saying, is the government is not effectively enough enforcing their laws to ensure compliance. For example, in Arab nations, if you so much as shoplifted, your hand would be chopped off. it's a damn effective deterrant. Americans can have their free speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, so on and so on.
But if you want probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt...drive through your nearest ghetto, turn on any news channel, read a newspaper. It is littered with teenagers and adults alike, that are gangbanging, robbing, murdering, drug running, driveby-shooting...I can go on and on...it's the decay of society.
histfan, if YOU are willing to swap your freedoms for high crime...how will YOU feel when your parents, siblings, children, friends, fall victim TO those very same crime rates. ME, i'm willing to swap some of my freedoms in exchange for some safetys. It's what the Patriot Act is doing right now. I'm gonna be really pissed off if my family gets murdered at the hands of a strungout thug with an AK-47. As I commented before, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights...is outdated, for the times we live in.

[histfan71]

Glad to hear that you are not one of those "Sovereign Citizen" folks. :)

I have lived in poor and high-crime areas most of my entire life. I came from a working class family, and right now I may just barely be lower-middle-class, to put a label on it. My family and myself have been victims of crimes, including violent ones. As I said in another forum, the people get the level of policing they deserve.

It is the citizens of this country who have put such stringent restrictions on the police. If the consequences of those stringent restrictions are weak enforcement of the laws, overcrowded prisons, and crooks who are out of jail and back on the street before the cops even finish writing the arrest report, then so be it. We have gotten what we deserve.

As I said in my previous post, I do not think the solution to our crime problem is more aggressive law enforcement and giving up some freedoms in exchange for security. I think that will result in tyranny and the loss of the freedoms I hold dear.

Do I have the solution? No, but I have ideas I think will help. First, decriminalize drug use and possession. Note I said decriminalize and NOT legalize . There is a big difference between the two. Decriminalize prostitution also. Move policing away from being a "para-military" type organization. Major reforms to our justice and corrections systems. Just to name a few. I don't want to go into details on this thread, but maybe I will start a new thread on this topic to hear everyone else's ideas

[histfan71]

For example, in Arab nations, if you so much as shoplifted, your hand would be chopped off.

I once worked with a guard who was born in Jordan, but who grew up in Saudi Arabia, before immigrating to America. We once had a lengthily conversation on this exact subject.

According to my friend, in Saudi Arabia anyway, a convicted thief will not get his/her hand chopped off until they have been convicted of theft at least three separate times. Even then, the punishment was rarely carried out.

[wisconsinite]

LOL...OK histfan...the Arabs get the three-strike rule...THEN get their hand lobbed off...if at all...hehehe.
Also, I believe, the only way "the citizens of this country have put such stringent restrictions on the police"....is by electing panzy weak politicians
that write panzy weak laws, that the police, and the judicial system have to endure. So, yes, we've gotten what we deserve, so-to-speak. But The Patriot Act is a step in the right direction, for terrorism anyway. There should be a Patriot Act-like document to address the thugs and "hoodlums" too.
I also agree with you, we should make a thread seperate from this. Entitle it, "Crime & Punishment", or something. Decriminalize drugs and prostitution?
Like Amsterdam? What's THEIR crime stats?

[ff000525]

Decriminalize drugs and prostitiution? That would definatley NOT work. If you decriminalize the use of meth, crack, coke, even mj what about the crimes that were committed selling, procurring, shipping or stealing those drugs? Would the severity of punishment go down also? Wisconsinite is right, this isn't amsterdam (which has one of the highest personal crime rates in the world), decriminalize status offenses for jv's don't decriminilize drugs.

[histfan71]

Decriminalize drugs and prostitiution? That would definatley NOT work. If you decriminalize the use of meth, crack, coke, even mj what about the crimes that were committed selling, procurring, shipping or stealing those drugs? Would the severity of punishment go down also? Wisconsinite is right, this isn't amsterdam (which has one of the highest personal crime rates in the world), decriminalize status offenses for jv's don't decriminilize drugs.

Sure it will. Since I don't want to have to write a book here, this is my idea in brief:

The government will have to regulate drugs and prostitution the same way it currently regulates tobacco and alcohol, with many of the same restrictions. No sales to minors, no sales outside of licensed establishments, etc.

As far as drugs go, I would decriminalize all but hallucinogens. I think that hallucinogens, especially LSD and PCP are too dangerous to allow. All other drugs should be allowed. Being under the influence of drugs in a public place should remain illegal.

Crimes related to the selling, distribution, transportation, etc. I think will pretty much disappear since the government will regulate this. However, I am not too naive to realize that illicit sales, thefts, etc. will still occur. I do think that it will be greatly reduced, however.

[wisconsinite]

hist...in a perfect world, your theories may hold true. But you're forgetting the fundamental principle. Criminals wil be criminals. They're not gonna obey the regulations and rules set forth. They're gonna continue to manufacture, traffic, distribute, sell, kill to get it, steal it, etc., etc. They won't care about selling to minors, and sell outside of licensed establishments. And they'll still be high in public. Not even the ATF will have an effect. The only thing that will happen by legalizing illicit drugs is, there will be a whole lotta vacancies in prisons around the country. OK, I'll bend a little bit...legalize marijuana.

[Mr. Security]

...
The government will have to regulate drugs... the same way it currently regulates tobacco and alcohol, with many of the same restrictions. No sales to minors, no sales outside of licensed establishments, etc....


That hasn't worked too well. Look at how many thousands are enslaved to these substances to the point where their craving is more important than good health, happy families, and productive lives. Who do you expect to pay for all the long-term staggering health care costs brought on by legalizing drugs? Let me guess. The government, right. In other words, don't tell me how to live my life, but I'm not responsible for the consequences. :confused:

[wisconsinite]

HIGH FIVE, Mr. Security!

[histfan71]

I agree that drug abusers are addicted, and that addiction is bad for their health. It comes down to personal accountablility. The dummy made the decision to take drugs, and now the dummy has to pay the consequences.

No, I do not think the government should bear the burden of their health care costs. They should be paid for by the dummy. If the dummy cannot afford health care or insurance? Too bad, so sad for the dummy. I do not believe the government should protect individuals from themselves. Individuals should be responsible for their own health and safety. That means that individuals should not do drugs in the first place, but I believe that is an individual decision.

Also, once plenty of room has been made in the prisons we can fill them back up with violent offenders. I would feel much safer with violent crooks locked up and drug abusers out on the streets than vice versa.

[ACP01]

Legalizing drugs and prostitution would not diminish crime at all.

If you were to remove an illegal market then the criminals would just move on to another market. Remember about prohibition, the illegal booze market went thru the roof then after repeal the mobs just changed products.

Even now with tobacco there is a market in un-taxed cigerettes and there will be the same for narcotics if legalized.

Again even if these things are made legal along with age requirements etc there are those that would still sell the product to the underage.

In referance to US and UK language differances Gen. Patton summed it up as
"Two peoles seperated by a comon language."

[ff000525]

Our prisions are filled with violent criminals...and most of them have priors for drug convictions. In response to your other post, about only making possesion of hallucinegens illegal. Herion is considered an opiate, yet you can still die from the WITHDRAWL side effects when you're trying to beat it, yet you don't think it is dangerous? Do you really want people driving on the roads with a prescription for crack, coke or meth? From what I hear, those drugs have no medical purpose anyway, so how will the goverment regulate them? Flood the market with pharmuecutical grade crack? Ok, I'm spent on this thread...... how 'bout that biatholon?

[histfan71]

I never claimed that decriminalizing drugs would eliminate crime, just greatly diminish it. And yes, I know that kids would still be able to get ahold of drugs under my theory, just as they are able to get their hands on alcohol and tobacco nowadays. Where there is will there is a way. If underage kids are caught with drugs they would still be arrested and prosecuted under my theory.

As far as driving under the influence of drugs, that would still be illegal under DUI laws, and would be arrested and prosecuted. The same as being under the influence of drugs in a public place, that would still be illegal. That is one of the reasons I say DECRIMINALIZE, rather than LEGALIZE.

Tired of this thread?!? You have to admit, I have stirred up some lively debate and gotten people thinking and talking. I thought that was the whole purpose of this board?

[histfan71]

Herion is considered an opiate, yet you can still die from the WITHDRAWL side effects when you're trying to beat it, yet you don't think it is dangerous?

Yes, herion is one of the most dangerous drugs out there. But if you abuse herion the only one you are hurting is YOURSELF. If you want to destroy your life by sticking a needle into your vein, so be it, but you accept the personal responsibilities and consequences (i.e. death) of your actions.

With hallucinogens, the potential for hurting people other than yourself is much greater, and why I think they should remain illegal. I once had to deal with a young man who was high on PCP and nearly beat his mother to death with his bare hands. The man hallucinated that his mother was actually an alien who was going to kill and then eat him.

[Mr. Security]

I.....
No, I do not think the government should bear the burden of their health care costs. They should be paid for by the dummy. If the dummy cannot afford health care or insurance? Too bad, so sad for the dummy.....

OK. Let's play your scenario out. Thousands of so-called "dummies" need medical care because of substance abuse. They have no health insurance and don't qualify for Medicare. Now what? If you plan on not treating them unless they can pay for medical care, then they must find a way to get the funds needed or die. Since most will not choose to die, how will they get the money? That's right. Theft and/or robbery accompanied by the violence associated with such criminal activity. Guess what? You're right back where you started; more crime and overcrowded prisons.

Now, what about the innocent victims of drug abuse, i.e., family members, crime victims? Will you deny them the psychiatric/psychotherapy care and the financial aid that they need to recover? After all, they didn't choose to use drugs. Who will help them, besides the government? :(

[histfan71]

Mr. Security,

You make an EXCELLENT point about healthcare. I do not pretend to have ALL the answers. However, here in California at least, there are social service agencies that provide medical care and other such services to the indigent drug abusers. This includes counseling and drug abuse treatment for both the user AND their families. I believe they receive some taxpayer support, but most of their funding comes from donations and like. I could be wrong; I know little about these agencies other than that they exist.

In my 18 years of combined police and security experience I have NEVER heard a drug abuser say they committed their crimes in order to pay for health care. They committed their crimes in order to get money to BUY drugs!

[Mr. Security]

Mr. Security,

You make an EXCELLENT point about healthcare.!

Thank you sir. :)



In my 18 years of combined police and security experience I have NEVER heard a drug abuser say they committed their crimes in order to pay for health care. They committed their crimes in order to get money to BUY drugs!

That's because emergency rooms are required by law to treat life-threatening medical problems and also due to government funded programs like Medicare and the like. Abusing one?s body is like taking a precious gift and ruining it. Imagine how you would feel if you gave someone a Lexus and he or she used it to haul manure? Similarly, life is precious, even more so than a gift. Mistreating our bodies by abusing drugs demonstrates contempt for the gift of life.

That's why the government sets forth some laws to protect those who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves and avoid harming others. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[histfan71]

Mistreating our bodies by abusing drugs demonstrates contempt for the gift of life.

I agree 100%. Just because I support the decriminalization of most drugs does not mean that I think doing drugs is a good idea. Quite the opposite, in fact.


That's why the government sets forth some laws to protect those who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves and avoid harming others. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Absoultely. I just do not agree that it is the function of government to protect individuals from themselves. One of America's greatest strengths is that we have the freedom to polietly disagree with each other, even though I understand your position and respect it. In other countries such disagreements could lead to violence. :)

[Mr. Security]

Well, we can agree on one thing. We can agree to disagree. :D ;)