Wanting Nice Things and Discrimination

[Channing]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

I'd think encouraging people to trespass on private property would be a pretty cut & dry bannable offense.

Pretty sure this isn't just that cut & dry.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Channing

Pretty sure this isn't just that cut & dry.

You've provided me no evidence to the contrary. It's irrelevant that he was alone & eating when he was removed. Would you prefer that security have waited until he was surrounded by individuals known to them, in the midst of trespassing due to his unauthorized actions? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Channing]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

You've provided me no evidence to the contrary. It's irrelevant that he was alone & eating when he was removed. Would you prefer that security have waited until he was surrounded by individuals known to them, in the midst of trespassing due to his unauthorized actions? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Well you've removed all context of the situation and said ban him. Which 240glt isn't advocating.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Channing

Well you've removed all context of the situation and said ban him. Which 240glt isn't advocating.

No, I said inviting people to chat with you on private property that you do not own/control despite knowing that the presence of those people on said private property constituting trespassing seems like an offense worthy of a ban.

[Channing]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

No, I said inviting people to chat with you on private property that you do not own/control despite knowing that the presence of those people on said private property constituting trespassing seems like an offense worthy of a ban.

Exactly. Removed all context.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Channing

Exactly. Removed all context.

You've provided excuses, not context.

[Channing]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

You've provided excuses, not context.

Okay I thought that there was a bunch of obvious context but I'll write it out for you. Gary Moostoos is a First Nations outreach worker whose job is to work with his community, which includes those with troubled pasts, even some banned from the mall. Sometimes he needs space to talk to talk to them and for reasons that neither you nor I know, he choose the mall. It may have been the only choice available.

The security guards were fired, so someone thought they were in the wrong too.

He's not longer banned.

Obviously Oxford wishes they would have taken a different approach.

Because it's not a clear cut ban them all kind of situation.

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by Channing

Okay I thought that there was a bunch of obvious context but I'll write it out for you. Gary Moostoos is a First Nations outreach worker whose job is to work with his community, which includes those with troubled pasts, even some banned from the mall. Sometimes he needs space to talk to talk to them and for reasons that neither you nor I know, he choose the mall. It may have been the only choice available.

The security guards were fired, so someone thought they were in the wrong too.

He's not longer banned.

Obviously Oxford wishes they would have taken a different approach.

Because it's not a clear cut ban them all kind of situation.

Wait, why did he get to decide to use the mall as his meeting spot? It's private property, despite whatever good intentions he may have/still has, the onus is on him to ensure the business/work/volunteering he was doing is okay'd by the property owner.
The entitlement to conduct his work on someone else's property with people who have previously harmed the owner of the property is only excused because it's 'good work'?
I see a lot of fault here on both sides, but oxford bared it all.

[noodlenoodle]

So because he's FN & talks with other FN people, Oxford should lose some of their rights in regards to their private property rather than Gary himself working inside the system he's ostensibly counselling others to successfully navigate? It wasn't Gary's prerogative whether or not the CCM was an available choice, as his clients had made their own personal choices that forced the hand of the property owner to take action to protect their assets & investments. He made a call he wasn't authorized or entitled to make & figured he could get away with it (and now evidently has).

Thanks to knee-jerk reactions from the court of public opinion & the need to manage perceptions more than facts, people have lost their jobs & Oxford now has to walk on eggshells with regards to one of the biggest issues facing the public perception of their property lest anyone blow the "racist" dog-whistle again.

Brutal.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Wait, why did he get to decide to use the mall as his meeting spot? It's private property, despite whatever good intentions he may have/still has, the onus is on him to ensure the business/work/volunteering he was doing is okay'd by the property owner.
The entitlement to conduct his work on someone else's property with people who have previously harmed the owner of the property is only excused because it's 'good work'?

to be fair - i hope - gary moostoos likely considered the public spaces in the mall to be public spaces in the same sense you and i might agree to meet there for a coffee or even just to sit and talk while others had coffee.

should i have to check your record first with the mall to see if you had ever robbed the bank or stolen a watch from the jewelry store or skipped out on a bar bill? would you - should you - disclose that to me if it were true prior to meeting me there?

if i was trying to sell you an office space or ask you to provide me with consulting services and that was the reason for the meeting, should i ask the mall for prior approval to do so?

i don't think any of the parties involved here have clean hands - gary, the mall, the city, the employees themselves - and each and every one of them could have - and should have - conducted themselves differently to avoid the outcome that did take place.

[Channing]

Maybe the people he was meeting with were there anyways? Maybe they didn't tell him they were banned? Maybe the CCM had already unfairly banned other individuals? There is all kinds of nuance you're ignoring.

And 240glt already said the mall would likely have okayed it, had he spoken to them.

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by kcantor

to be fair - i hope - gary moostoos likely considered the public spaces in the mall to be public spaces in the same sense you and i might agree to meet there for a coffee or even just to sit and talk while others had coffee.

should i have to check your record first with the mall to see if you had ever robbed the bank or stolen a watch from the jewelry store or skipped out on a bar bill? would you - should you - disclose that to me if it were true prior to meeting me there?

if i was trying to sell you an office space or ask you to provide me with consulting services and that was the reason for the meeting, should i ask the mall for prior approval to do so?

i don't think any of the parties involved here have clean hands - gary, the mall, the city, the employees themselves - and each and every one of them could have - and should have - conducted themselves differently to avoid the outcome that did take place.

Honestly, if you are counselling troubled individuals it might be a bit different than the average business meeting? I guess to make your argument viable we can offer him the full blind benefit.
That said, if you kept meeting with individuals to sell them office space on someone else's property and those persons had been banned, yes I'd say it was reasonable to escort you out as well. It is up to you/me/.us to know who we're doing business with even if that business is ultimately is for some social good.
Assuming that your best intentions lets you do whatever you want and be as ignorant as you want on someone else's property is a poor excuse.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

to be fair - i hope - gary moostoos likely considered the public spaces in the mall to be public spaces in the same sense you and i might agree to meet there for a coffee or even just to sit and talk while others had coffee.

should i have to check your record first with the mall to see if you had ever robbed the bank or stolen a watch from the jewelry store or skipped out on a bar bill? would you - should you - disclose that to me if it were true prior to meeting me there?

if i was trying to sell you an office space or ask you to provide me with consulting services and that was the reason for the meeting, should i ask the mall for prior approval to do so?

i don't think any of the parties involved here have clean hands - gary, the mall, the city, the employees themselves - and each and every one of them could have - and should have - conducted themselves differently to avoid the outcome that did take place.

Just to clarify, if you do get banned from the mall you receive the ban in writing that states why you were banned, the length of time the ban is in place and a clear description of the areas you are banned from entering

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Just to clarify, if you do get banned from the mall you receive the ban in writing that states why you were banned, the length of time the ban is in place and a clear description of the areas you are banned from entering

i don't think - at least from my perspective - that banning individuals shouldn't take place. it's sometimes the most appropriate action an owner can take. as an owner, there is a responsibility and an obligation to other visitors and tenants and staff that needs to be met and that's something that too often tends to get overlooked in these conversations. should gary - who wasn't banned at the time - been approached earlier and/or differently? in hindsight no one is likely to think otherwise but no one is likely to think he should never have been approached at all.

[240glt]

Well I will say at the end of all this, even though my department was not directly involved in this incident, I certainly did learn a lot from it and will carry those lessons forward to every property I mange in the future, that's for sure

[Hallsy's Toupee]

January 07, 2017 Mischief at WEM: This male suspect defecated in a WEM business after it was closed.
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CrimeFi...17-005639.aspx

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

January 07, 2017 Mischief at WEM: This male suspect defecated in a WEM business after it was closed.
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CrimeFi...17-005639.aspx

It'd be a shame to have such high res. images go to waste. Hopefully a few TV channels pick this up and broadcast his name all over the place when he's caught. I'd have to assume the images they aren't showing you are 100% conclusive proof of the crime.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

^
Typical sjw response. Dont like the discussion, scream its going to offend somebody and demand its too insentitive to discuss rather than have to go through the mental gymnastics of having to defend something silly.

Do you know what is unacceptable? Things like thursday morning at 7:00 when some loser hood rat in a (likely stolen) bike was blasting down the side walk on south side of jasper ave pretending he was going to hit people but then swerving at the last second.

Im glad threads like this make you uncomfortable. The crowd that wants to tip toe and put their head in the sand when it comes to expecting that this fraction of the population behave with some accountablility and gives them free reign to harrass, act like animals, etc, needs to be reminded that there are a ton of people who have had enough with this shit and are tired of being told the only option is to look the other way.

x2

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Landlocked

It'd be a shame to have such high res. images go to waste. Hopefully a few TV channels pick this up and broadcast his name all over the place when he's caught. I'd have to assume the images they aren't showing you are 100% conclusive proof of the crime.

He's looks to be wearing a Camrose Trojans high school football jacket with his number on the sleeve. Should be a pretty easy find.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

x2

Why waste time arguing with you when I know you'll never care or listen to what I have to say?