Comments on: Law & Order: Social Media Unit

By: Kai

Kai — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:43:11 +0000

XD Oh man. I’ve seen that sign too, and thought it would be perfect for the site, but never had a camera on hand. I think it’s a brilliant strategy, and more importantly, it worked.

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:27:22 +0000

I’m curious as to why it’s considered more appropriately “anonymizing” to put the black bar solely across these youths’ eyes?

I consider the redheaded kid’s hair colour to be more of an identifying trait than the shape and/or colour of his eyes.

By: Lisap

Lisap — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:59:52 +0000

To clarify further: the shop is, as mentioned, a small souvenir shop along the waterfront in Halifax (read “un-necessarily pricey tourist trap”). It is incredibly unlikely that they were even stealing anything they would even use, most likely shoplifting for the sake of something to do.

By: Golgathoth

Golgathoth — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:42 +0000

They aren’t very good shoplifters, they didn’t even check for cameras. No creativity or observation there. It’s not even particularly difficult to avoid hazards like that when you’re a thief.

By: Wat!

Wat! — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:38:11 +0000

This was in Halifax?! I am oddly proud of my city right now.

By: Maya

Maya — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:51:18 +0000

I got caught doing this when I was about 8 or 9 years old. Boy, did I regret it! Luckily they didn’t need to shame me with pictures, but I was plenty shamed anyway.

By: Danny

Danny — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 02:58:45 +0000

A bank account number with a negative balance is not particularly appealing to your typical miscreant.

By: Risha

Risha — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:50:35 +0000

“And I must admit, I got caught nicking stuff when I was 15, and I was nicking makeup, back in Boots in Bexhill-On-Sea. I could’ve bought it, I could’ve saved up and bought it, but I thought, if I bought it, someone might say, “Hey, you’re a boy buying makeup! You must be a trans-vestite!” And then I’d have to go, “Oh, Sherlock Holmes! How did you get to the bottom of that one, you big, deer-stalker, weird, fucking hat person?… and they caught me! But I was 15, so they let me off with a warning, which was,

‘This lipstick is not gonna work with this eye-shadow, no way! That’s light blue, that’s a death colour! You want a bit of foundation in this, that’s very cheap foundation.’

‘Oh…’

‘That’s a warning!’

‘Oh, thank you, Chief Constable.’” – Eddie Izzard

By: Zhopka

Zhopka — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:17:27 +0000

(Oh guys, I’m so proud of myself, I found you an example! This is a piece of a well-known 1968 film; fastforward to 7:01 and, for a few seconds, you’ll see what I mean. No photos there, incidentally, – names are named instead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rgDaGH8wI )

By: Zhopka

Zhopka — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:44:24 +0000

LOL jeez, I must have my ability to express myself all mangled up, if anyone thought I was comparing these guys to a “dictatorship”. Sorry if that’s the case! Just to clarify – in case anyone has any doubts – “dictators” in “my” country didn’t hang signs. They sorta just went and murdered people. As I said earlier, signs were hung up by anyone who didn’t like anyone else. I mean that, guys. If you thought your neighbour drinks too much, you went to the other neighbours and together, you hung up a shaming sign with his or her picture. Then you went home, feeling proud (if a bit shaky from all the alcohol you yourself have had). Facts didn’t have to be a part of your verdict. Just like here, technically – no proof admissible in the court of law. Just a picture of two minors with a label “shoplifter”. Nah, I stand by my earlier post: this is brilliant.

By: Clumber

Clumber — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:18:19 +0000

There is also a difference between gov’t retribution verses community retribution. I tend to feel that in cases that are minor in terms of gov’t GiveADamns community-based punishment/callout is acceptable within reason, and in my opinion (which is often wrong) posting the kids’ photos is well within acceptable. Now if the flyer called for a stoning in the town square or asked that someone bring the store owner the kid’s head on a plate – well that would be different. I was a bit startled, too, by the posted decision to leave the photo up until the items were reimbursed for, but perhaps it is understandable. Hell, maybe the parents requested that. I can totally imagine my dad doing that and perhaps making me wear said photo on a t-shirt… lol. Though I didn’t shoplift so I may be far off about the punishment…. And I don’t want to think too much about that. ~twitch~ Anyway, I don’t see how this goes too far with the info given. Why involve the police who would probably not be as effective in ID-ing the kid, and sometimes shaming is more a deterrent than JuV. YMMV

By: The Elf

The Elf — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:43:52 +0000

Uh, no. Public shaming is a completely appropriate way to handle situations like this (minor thefts by juveniles) and has zilch to do with individual rights. Nonconformity and freedom to be you pretty much ends when you cross the line to criminality. It’s a minor crime, but still a crime. If they had been posting pictures of people doing things the store owner does like but are not crimes (like wearing their pants too low), then maybe you’d have a point.

Besides, in some places being branded as a shoplifter would hardly be shaming, except to the parents. Some punk ass kids view thefts as some sort of mark of pride, to be bragged about. They’d veiw an arrest with even more pride. There’s no getting through to those kids, but you might get through to the parents.

By: Xenobio

Xenobio — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:18:45 +0000

The storeowners can’t be COMPLETE idiots – if they didn’t have proof that the kids were thieves they would be at risk of a libel or defamation lawsuit.

By: Xenobio

Xenobio — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:15:38 +0000

My guess would have been “trying to impress girlfriends”.