They've been doing this at one of the malls out here for quite a while now.
I dig it, but then again I am a grumpy old fart.
I dig it, but then again I am a grumpy old fart.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mall Rats no more?
- Thread starter grapes911
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Has business gone down, are they hurting to get customers?
The fact is malls are not the same as they were in the 80's. They are aiming at family's and women, people they want to attract are not teenagers anymore. Arcades are gone, replaced with a merry go round for children. The mall wants to be a safe place for a mother to come with her child. Not a hang out for gang members. Stores are more upscale, aimed at adults.
Where I live the closest mall is 15 miles away and it's an antique mall. I wish my teenager would want to go there! lol
Seriously though, I think it's sad that these rules have to be invoked because of the few trouble-makers. It is necessary, however, for the same reason that I won't be able to use the Marketplace here until I am 3 months older.
Malls will eventually become extinct with or without teenagers. More and more people - young AND old - favor online shopping, standalone box stores, and superstores (Walmart, Target, etc...). When I was young we hung out at malls and caused problems - nowadays, kids "hang out" on PS3 and XBOX.
Also, I have noticed a trend of outdoor malls which are a bit more "fancy" than your run of the mill multistory mega mall. Is this because of teenagers or just a change in the industry?
Also, I have noticed a trend of outdoor malls which are a bit more "fancy" than your run of the mill multistory mega mall. Is this because of teenagers or just a change in the industry?
Couldn't they just set a restriction like they have in some shops here, where no more than 2 kids (the restriction classes them as 'school children' which is rather vague, but besides the point) are allowed in at the same time.
Or that crowds may not be more than x amount of people?
Or that crowds may not be more than x amount of people?
Doing a little checking about this story, I guess the mall in question implemented a similar policy soon after the food fight referenced in their current decision.
The mall only allowed kids to congregate in groups of 3 or less (iirc).
I still think this is an overreaction - but then again, I have never been to Delaware - perhaps the children there are all the spawn of Satan.
I keep thinking that if the mall denies all the kiddies their Friday -Satuday crawl, the mall may have to close on those days. After all, how many adults want to work in a Spencers or A&F on a Saturday night? I mean, if they don't want to have minors in the mall on those nights, then the stores can't be staffed.
I can just imagine an A&F being staffed by a bunch of balding, fat middle aged men working a second job.
I can just imagine an A&F being staffed by a bunch of balding, fat middle aged men working a second job.
Make the people on welfare get off their fat asses and work for once in their life.I keep thinking that if the mall denies all the kiddies their Friday -Satuday crawl, the mall may have to close on those days. After all, how many adults want to work in a Spencers or A&F on a Saturday night? I mean, if they don't want to have minors in the mall on those nights, then the stores can't be staffed.
I can just imagine an A&F being staffed by a bunch of balding, fat middle aged men working a second job.
I keep thinking that if the mall denies all the kiddies their Friday -Satuday crawl, the mall may have to close on those days. After all, how many adults want to work in a Spencers or A&F on a Saturday night? I mean, if they don't want to have minors in the mall on those nights, then the stores can't be staffed.
I can just imagine an A&F being staffed by a bunch of balding, fat middle aged men working a second job.
Not that I agree with the malls' position in the OP (as I have noted in this thread) - -but I am sure there is an exemption for Mall employees (underage).
Well I don't know of a specific law that states that, but it's moot anyway. The relevant law is that of trespass; the private property owner has said that the youth is not allowed on his property unless he adheres to a certain condition, if he's not adhering to that condition then he is not authorised as a bona fide visitor, but a trespasser.
Is it reasonable to ask that a minor be accompanied? I think it is, the minor isn't legally responsible for their action, their legal guardian is, so it's reasonable to require the person responsible to be there.
US law may be different, but what I'm saying that whether it's the letter of the law or not I believe the mall's action to be reasonable, which more importantly keeps it within the spirit of the law.
the relevant law is not tresspassing. if that were the case, then going back to the race example, then anyone who is not white would be tresspassing if the owner so says. that doesnt fly inthe US as it is very illegal
you cant simply discriminate against a certain demographic simple as that
you are completely missing my point
ok then what about a 15 year old? say you dont want a comic now, but something else that the mall carried
i am not talking about what a 10 y/o "should" do but "could" do.
Forget the race example, it's not reasonable to make a condition based on race. The condition the property owner has made, is that as the child isn't legally responsible they can't enter without somebody accepting to be responsible for them.
Again I don't know US law, but here there is no law that says a 12year old can't get a mortgage from a bank, but the bank won't lend to a child because the law exempts that child from being responsible for the debt. The bank isn't obliged to lend to a white 12year old, just because it's happy to lend to a 30year black guy.
lol with your logic, show me a law where you can shop or whether you can ride your bike.......there is none but does that mean it is againstt the law to do so?
laws are there to say what you can not do, not what you are allowed to do
for example, i cant steal, cant speed, cant lie in court
You can't enter private property unless invited, you must leave private property when asked, etc. etc.
To be honest, it looks like there is a to-fold idea here. One, is modifying the behavior of children, and the other, is to make the parent both be responsible for their child, as well as being aware of what they are up to. Too many of the parents of those children, let the mall be the baby sitter.
as far as "legal responsibility" , if you have a child, you are responsible. there is no distance requirement that somehow disconnects a parents responsibilty from their kid
this is not a question about legal responsiblility as the mall could go after the parents of the kids in question.
no, this is a question of do malls have the "right" to make people under 18 have to have an adult to accompany them to a mall which is otherwise open to the public
SOME teenagers are pains. But this is just stupid. Its like telling my I am not allowed into Shibuya cause my parents aren't with me
Not all teenagers are foodfighting, thieving retards roaming malls. Some just like to have a place to eat and meet with friends, peacefully.
Not all teenagers are foodfighting, thieving retards roaming malls. Some just like to have a place to eat and meet with friends, peacefully.
then why not just ask the kids causing trouble to leave and deal with them accordingly? rather than cast a blanket ban over all kids which most are good citizens
i mean, i dont need an "invite" to go into walmart, but they can kick me out if i am causing trouble. they dont however say ban all 23 year olds because of the actions of myself
True, but that doesn't make preventative measures obsolete. Surely it's better for everyone that badly behaved children are controlled and guided, rather than caught and punished after the fact.
Yes I believe they do, reasonably, morally and even legally.
Because trouble makers, by their very nature, cause trouble. Why should a mall spend a small fortune dealing with problem children? much easier and more cost effective I imagine to manage a blanket ban.
Only a minority of people cause violence at football matches in europe, but it still leads to blanket bans on traveling fans to some countries. Only a minority of speeding drivers crash, yet the speed limit is imposed on everybody.
Here in the Sacramento, CA area, the new trend is essentially a bunch of large box stores connected together to form what amounts to an outdoor shopping center. The two malls on Truxel Road just north of I-80 in Sacramento, CA are the best examples of this.
Yes, completely undesirable around here (though it seems we keep getting cursed with new ones). No one likes them, and we used to refuse shopping at them. But, now that's all we have. It sucks.