Local mall adopts extreme curfew

[DesignFox]

Also, I could be misintertpreting a few posters statements, but the mall isn't completely banning teenagers during the evening hours. They are merely stating that they MUST be accompanied by an adult.

Granted, what teenager wants to hang out with their parents...(and what parent really wants to drag a gang of teens around a mall for half the night- hah!)

At any rate...unaccompanied kids need to behave, prove that they spend more money that us old fogies...or...I dunno, someone has to prove somehow that the unaccompanied kids aren't that big a problem. I don't see the ban going away otherwise. Especially if profits go up.

Like I've said, I had the same problem when I was a kid. We just dealt with the rules or went someplace else. *shrug*

[Jester]

Their reasoning is that "it's private property, we can make this rule". The person writing the article was quick to point out how much public money went into building the mall (which is true - they demanded a LOT of cash from the city)

Using public money to build a private enterprise does not make that private enterprise subject to public property rules. If I'm a rowdy asshole at Rapscallion Stadium, for example, they can toss my ass right out. Why? It's private property, no matter how much taxpayer money was used to build it.

Plus I kinda wonder... if it's exactly legal. Cos what if you made the deciding factor something besides age? Would the "private property" disclaimer work if the mall picked race, gender, religion, or even elder-ages as the factor for their 4pm rule?

what is that had all been say... Race-Z doing the gang stuff.
by the same reasoning you could say "well race-z has a curfew".

in a way i don't see it as anything different.

an entire group is judged by how individuals act
and then punished by extreme rules

The flaw to your thinking here is that, under the law, people under 18 do NOT have the same rights as adults, period. Adults of different races, genders, and religions, however, do all have full Constitutional rights; children do not. You could certainly make the argument that that is wrong, but as it stands right now in this country, it is the legal fact.

Where are they supposed to go?

The mall is in the business of making money for itself and for its residents businesses. It is not in the business of teen socialization support. In other words, the mall doesn't care where the teens go, as long as they don't come to the mall. From a business perspective, the mall has no reason to care where they go, actually.

We didn't cause trouble; we window-shopped respectfully, spent our pocket money, ate dinner at the fast food court, and if all else failed, sat on the benches and talked.

You were fine. It was your rowdy fellow teens that caused the problems. Remember, not all teens are as well-behaved as you are/were.

Teenagers are vicious and disgusting. I was one once. When I was teen, a lot of us were like that as well. But not as bad as they HAVE gotten these days.

People have been bemoaning the horror of teenagers since at least the time of Socrates. Trust me, your generation was just as bad, even if you weren't. I know mine was.

It is the exact same thing as if a certain race was causing problems, and then laying down a ban for that race.

Legally it is not the same. See above.

The lack of respect that society has for the young is terrible and makes me sad every time it comes up.

It could be argued (and was by Blas above) that the lack of respect that the young have for society is equally terrible.

This is the only form of descrimination that is left, that is allowed to continue (other discrimination DOES occur, but penalties follow it...).

I do believe that many homosexuals would disagree with you that discrimination against the young is the only legal discrimination left. Consensual sodomy is still illegal in many states, for example. I could cite other examples, but you get the idea and, frankly, that would be another debate.

One thing I would find interesting as far as enforcement... what right would a security guard have to ask for ID? Wouldn't that be a standard violation of rights?

No. A mall security guard in this situation would have the same right to ask for ID as a bouncer does at a bar or a club. In other words, every right. You could say that the bouncer is merely enforcing the law, but that could be left to the bartender to ID the people ordering drinks. Also, bouncers have the right to frisk or "wand" (use a portable metal detector on) incoming patrons. Why? They aren't enforcing any laws with that, are they? No, but they are protecting the interests of the private property owner, in this case the bar proprietor who does not want weaponry on his property.

I was speaking from monetary value. Forget who has the dollar. It is a dollar.

But you can't separate the dollar from its owner that easily. Because, frankly, everyone's dollar is not the same. After all, teens as a group have less money in general and less discretionary money in particular. In plain English, they spend less money than adults. I remember many times as a teen myself going to a mall and hanging out. If I spent money, it was a few bucks at the fast food place or the mall. Maybe a couple bucks at the music store. But was I spending the same amount of money as the adults frequenting the mall? Absolutely not. Was I spending a lot more time at the mall that those same adults? Generally speaking, yes I was. My money, my friend, was worth less to the mall and the mall's businesses than that of those adults, because I, and my teenage brethren, had less of it and spent less of it. It's simple math.

At any rate...unaccompanied kids need to behave, prove that they spend more money that us old fogies...or...I dunno, someone has to prove somehow that the unaccompanied kids aren't that big a problem.

But to the mall's eyes, a lot of kids are not behaving. Add to this the simple fact that teens DON'T spend more money than old fogies. And as a group, the teens in this instance have not proven that they are not a problem, or there would be no ban.

[crazylegs]

I do believe that many homosexuals would disagree with you that discrimination against the young is the only legal discrimination left. Consensual sodomy is still illegal in many states, for example. I could cite other examples, but you get the idea and, frankly, that would be another debate.

Apologies, I was debating from this side of the pond, where such discrimination is illegal.

[Slytovhand]

People have been bemoaning the horror of teenagers since at least the time of Socrates.

Helen of Troy was, at best, a teenager... possibly only 9 years old (depending on which source you take). While I haven't found an age for Paris, I'd say he was teens as well....

No. A mall security guard in this situation would have the same right to ask for ID as a bouncer does at a bar or a club

But... there is a law in place about underage drinking and admittance into a club (being on the premises). No such law is in place about being in a mall. If someone refuses to show ID at the bar, they don't get served. Slightly different kettle of fish.

Otherwise, I think we see eye to eye on this! (although, I note you don't seem to have expressed an opinion on the subject... only refuted various points people have made.....?????

[Jester]

But... there is a law in place about underage drinking and admittance into a club (being on the premises). No such law is in place about being in a mall. If someone refuses to show ID at the bar, they don't get served. Slightly different kettle of fish.

Actually, no it isn't. See, the law is simply that you can't serve someone under the age of 21. There is no law (at least in any state I've worked) that says people under 21 can't be on the premises of a club or a bar. That is a policy undertaken by the club to uphold the drinking age law. Same as the policy some clubs and bars have that people under 21 can't be there after a certain time. Arbitrary policy, having no basis in law. Just like a ban on minors at a mall past a certain time. While there may be a curfew law, the ban is related to that in the same way the ban on people under 21 at a club is related to the underage drinking law: not at all.

Otherwise, I think we see eye to eye on this! (although, I note you don't seem to have expressed an opinion on the subject... only refuted various points people have made.....?????

I don't really have an opinion on the topic, as I don't know the area or the mall. It might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea. Frankly, I neither know nor care.

[McDreidel09]

Ok. So I may not know much about business. I've only taken two business classes. So I see where my logic is flawed.

I am talking from a personal point of view,trying to use myself as an example, but I see that is a bad example because I guess I'm just different from the people in my age group.

I'm one of those rare few who actually go to the mall to buy something and behave myself.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, and we're actually on different land masses upon this planet... laws here are a bit different... sorry, shouldn't have presumed ... my bad.

[Jester]

Well, I can only comment on my knowledge of the laws in MY country, as I have very little knowledge of laws in OTHER countries.

[Arcade Man D]

My mall also has a curfew on Fridays & Saturdays after 4 PM. This is because there used to be fights every week in the food court, between teenagers. They looked at their incident reports with Security, and figured out that somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of incidents were instigated by teens (shoplifting, assaults, vandalizing, etc.).

Therefore, the 75% that were trouble-makers are banned, and the 25% that behaved themselves can probably get their parents to come with them.

[Sylvia727]

the 25% that behaved themselves can probably get their parents to come with them.

Not in my experience.

[Arcade Man D]

I should rephrase that. They can get someone they know over the age of 21 to come with them, since that's what the rule actually is (like for R movies). Hell, I've done that for my little brother before he turned 18.

[HowMayIHelpMe?]

I like this mall's rule. I think it's a great idea, it's an effort to control clearly out of control kids, and I think the 4 pm aspect of it strikes me as an effort to make the mall more enjoyable to visit for adults who are going there after work.

With the rotten crop of kids coming up these days, this new rule strikes me as a piece of good news.

[bunnyboy]

You know if it wasn't for certain things happening I think all four of my local malls would have curfews.

The small one has had a sudden trend of becoming less shopping (what it was when I was a teen/early-twentysomething) and more eating, due to the downtown of that city in essence becoming a large mall area (went from one mall to technically 4 now, though with how close they are two being connected, and each being a two block walk from eachother.)

the next biggest is a combination indoor-outdoor mall and has always been more about cheap shops (big spending non-game stores just went poof...except the WOTC store...that was a corporate decision.)

The next biggest and most local changed management to something like what Juwl used to work at long ago, and was unfortunately the crossroads of the two gangland express buses, but it decided to grow bigger and having the food court/hang-out area closed for nearly three years stopped that right out.

And the big one, or as I like to call it the super-ultra-mega mall (arise mall! arise!) does it by 1) having maybe three stores teens would want to go to, 2) being in truth 4 malls, 3) having no central food court to speak of, and 4) BEing in the RED suburbs of a BLUE county, oddly the one thing I can say for the local republicans is their kids are well behaved, could also be because even with the local rap station being everywhere country and rock seems to be more popular in the suburbs around here... dunno why...

but yes any of those malls (especially the second largest) could have imposed quite a few restrictions (and it did on one particular group, only time facepaint was allowed was when one of the Psychopathic Records artists had a signing at Hot Topic,) but well wanting more money and more stores basically destroyed their problem by making them have to find someplace else to hang out.