CCCB wrote:My kids, by the way, treated the experience as an opportunity for vocabulary building. In the car, they were discussing the repeated use of the word "huff"--something my kids thought no one knew outside their school. It's an incredibly insulting way of saying someone is really bad at something according to the urban dictionary.

I think you're misunderstanding them. Huffing is akin to sniffing glue -- taking huge whiffs of aeresol fumes, solvents, gasoline, etc .. in order to get high. It kills brain cells very quickly.

gleam wrote:What would you say if you called the police? "There are some teenagers near me being teenagers and expressing their first amendment rights, and they're refusing to engage me when I stare at them. Please come make them stop!"? I don't get it. It's not like they were threatening anyone.

This case has nothing to do w/ the first amendment. If the owner/manager wanted them out, he could ask them to leave. If he didn't like the way you ordered your dog, he could ask you to leave. The first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech.

I call BS on the whole story - two stoned kids weren't getting anything to eat at WASC? That's a stoned kid's paradise. "I'll take one of these, two of those, three of everything". Plus watching TV with very poor reception because of the rabbit ears. "Wow, look at the tv man, is it really black and white?." Heaven on earth for the teen-age stoner.

tem wrote:

gleam wrote:What would you say if you called the police? "There are some teenagers near me being teenagers and expressing their first amendment rights, and they're refusing to engage me when I stare at them. Please come make them stop!"? I don't get it. It's not like they were threatening anyone.

This case has nothing to do w/ the first amendment. If the owner/manager wanted them out, he could ask them to leave. If he didn't like the way you ordered your dog, he could ask you to leave. The first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech.

Right, which is why you ask the owner of the restaurant to do something, not the cops. Once you call the cops you ARE asking for government suppression of speech, especially since the OP was also complaining about them when the kids weren't even in the restaurant.

pizano345 wrote:I call BS on the whole story - two stoned kids weren't getting anything to eat at WASC? That's a stoned kid's paradise. "I'll take one of these, two of those, three of everything". Plus watching TV with very poor reception because of the rabbit ears. "Wow, look at the tv man, is it really black and white?." Heaven on earth for the teen-age stoner.

Oh yes. If only such a place existed back when I was still hitting the good stuff.

It did happen. This whole chain has given me a lot to think about, and I take more of a mhays point of view at this point because calling Evanston's finest to stop by does seem to be overkill. I'm also done commenting on it. I brought this up to elicit discussion that would make me reflect on what happened and what I could have done differently. And this forum has helped with that.

I probably would not have said anything, but perhaps I would have gathered my kids (if I had kids) and left if I thought their behavior was particularly threatening or inappropriate. If there is any sense that the kids are threatening or dangerous, there's no need to inject yourself into the situation and create any additional risks.

It is the store's responsibility to deal with the situation. You don't need to deal with it out of respect for the restaurant. (I realize that some here are friends with the owner and, in that case, I can see acting out of respect for him. But, for the rest of us who are simply customers and don't have this kind of relationship with the owner, I don't think we have the duty or moral obligation to resolve the situation.)

Darren72 wrote:I probably would not have said anything, but perhaps I would have gathered my kids (if I had kids) and left if I thought their behavior was particularly threatening or inappropriate. If there is any sense that the kids are threatening or dangerous, there's no need to inject yourself into the situation and create any additional risks.

It is the store's responsibility to deal with the situation. You don't need to deal with it out of respect for the restaurant. (I realize that some here are friends with the owner and, in that case, I can see acting out of respect for him. But, for the rest of us who are simply customers and don't have this kind of relationship with the owner, I don't think we have the duty or moral obligation to resolve the situation.)

I have a hard time biting my tongue with this reaction/response, but I am more proactive than a lot of ppl when it comes to just about everything. I have a feeling that back in the days where ppl could leave their doors unlocked, that many, many, ppl would have confronted these youngsters about their behavior, and everyone in the joint would have made it known that whoever started the confrontation with the youngsters had plenty of backup. I'm way old school, I guess.

Put me down for "old school" as well. One doesn't learn how to properly behave in social situations unless taught. Kids who push adults around become adults who push adults around. As an adult and citizen of the world, I believe I have a certain responsibility express what behavior I expect in public...especially from those who have not yet attained maturity.

I may make a gentle remark or a strong one depending on the situation but I will not be bullied into hiding or running away. Certainly my response depends on how threatened I feel and may involve getting a business owner, theater usher, or other figure involved but I believe one gets steps up because that's what keeps our society from...well...anarchy.

I'd supply a list of my well used lines upon request....and I take a lot of clues from Judith Martin

But these teenagers weren't pushing anyone around! They were talking to each other, and every indication has been that it was in a non-threatening way. The only complaint seems to be their language, and none of that language was directed at the other customers.

Diannie wrote:I may make a gentle remark or a strong one depending on the situation but I will not be bullied into hiding or running away. Certainly my response depends on how threatened I feel and may involve getting a business owner, theater usher, or other figure involved but I believe one gets steps up because that's what keeps our society from...well...anarchy.

I have to say, using the phrase being "bullied into hiding or running away" is tough language and quite strange given that your next sentence is "Certainly my response depends on how threatened I feel...". Yes, I would act tough when I feel like it and, when I feel threatened, well, then I won't act so tough. But when I post about it on LTHForum, I'll lead with the tough talk. (To borrow your language, I'm not going to let you use tough talk to bully me!)

We can certainly agree that we'd handle things differently, but the point of the original post (as I read it - perhaps we read it differently) is that by confronting these people, she could have been threatened. She wrote "...I also thought they were high or buzzed and might be volatile." There's a big difference between boorish, loud neighborhood kids and kids who are on drugs and might be volatile. Without being there, I certainly can't say how I'd react. But neither can you, I presume. I certainly wouldn't presume that someone is running away because they choose not inject themselves into a potentially volatile situation. If you want to say that this wasn't a potentially volatile situation, that's fine but that's not what the OP said.

If the teens were simply showing off, perhaps I would have ignored them and talked to my kids about what behavior I consider unacceptable. The old "I don't ever want to catch you..." line

Darren72: Please don't assume that my refusal to be bullied means I'm going to confront everyone myself. I have no qualms about getting the theater owner when people behind me won't stop talking. I also have no qualms about asking a shop owner to step in if other patrons are creating a "potentially volatile situation."

My main point still stands, the response should mirror the situation in intensity. Patrons who bother other patrons should be asked to stop by the appropriate authority.

I'm with seebee and Diannie, and if you know me at all you will know that I'm (politely) proactive well beyond what's described here. That being said, there are nuances: there is good reason not to get directly involved if violence is threatened or implied. Threats of violence are best handled by police; it's easy enough to quietly step away from the situation and make a call on your cell phone.

I don't think it's overstepping to ask someone not to swear in front of children, unless you've put them in a situation where swearing is expected, for instance brought them to a bar or Wiener's Circle or an R-rated movie. However, like I said before, I wouldn't really expect them to stop. I'm kind of uncomfortable with the idea that it's the proprieter's job to police behavior; if you're , let's say, blonde and they're telling blonde jokes that offend you, should he step in?

I'm no princess when it comes to bad language: as I mentioned privately to dansch, the other day, Sparky caught me dropping the f-bomb under my breath (I think I've been hanging around with GWiv too much .) I got a polite but stern talking-to, and certainly learned my lesson. Hell hath no fury like an indignant nine-year-old.

Darren72 wrote:There's a big difference between boorish, loud neighborhood kids and kids who are on drugs and might be volatile.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but what on earth are kids in Evanston smoking? Let's just say that I had a lot of friends who experimented around in their youth, and I don't recall anything making people violent or volatile.

Just in case I was behind the times and some hot new drug was out there, I checked the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and of the huge variety of drugs they list, only Alcohol and Methamphetamine list violence as an effect. If these kids had consumed "low to moderate doses of alcohol" that could "increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse." Of course, perhaps kids these days are taking a lot of meth.

I just hate to think that people are walking around, seeing loud, obnoxious kids and thinking "they must be smoking some crazy drug that'll make them lash out violently, so I better not say anything". I'm not trying to condone the use of drugs here (though I do enjoy a well-made Manhattan these days), I'm just trying to be realistic.

-Dan

Darren72 wrote:It is the store's responsibility to deal with the situation.

Yes, it is. And if such incidents were to be recurring and not sufficiently dealt with, and the wider community learned of that - many people would no longer patronize the establishment. Let's all hope this was a one-time, isolated incident.

Diannie wrote:Darren72: Please don't assume that my refusal to be bullied means I'm going to confront everyone myself. I have no qualms about getting the theater owner when people behind me won't stop talking. I also have no qualms about asking a shop owner to step in if other patrons are creating a "potentially volatile situation."

That's fine in general, but that isn't the situation here. We're not talking about a theater where you can discretely call in a manager. We're talking about a tiny restaurant where there is perhaps a 10 foot by 20 foot seating area in front of a counter, and store employees are right behind the counter, in front of the whole situation.

I was on the CTA bus the other day. There were some very loud and obnoxious white kids (not sure of age, older than 12, younger than 16) horsing around and being loud, just really very bad behavior, rocketing around between seats and shouting and whining. Their moms were there, and pretty much ignoring them. The quiet well behaved teenagers (similar age, no visible parents) sitting in the back near me said to each other "if we did that they'd tell us to cut it out, and say we were loud because were were black."

Mhays wrote:I'm kind of uncomfortable with the idea that it's the proprieter's job to police behavior; if you're , let's say, blonde and they're telling blonde jokes that offend you, should he step in?

I think we're having two different conversations here. Perhaps a new thread is in order to discuss whether proprietors should, or should not, police patrons' jokes. We can continue to discuss whether a proprietors should, or should not, intervene when people who are not eating at the establishment are obnoxious and perhaps threatening their customers. (Now, if those kids weren't eating at WASC but instead went from table to table making blonde jokes at the expense of blonde customers and otherwise disturbing them, then yes, the proprietor should get involved. Though I presume this isn't the situation you had in mind.)

We all seem to disagree on whether these kids are simply loud and obnoxious, or whether they are at another level and being threatening. Whether they were one or both is a factual matter that can't really be resolved by posting our guesses. But, a lot of people have said that they'd feel comfortable intervening in the former, but not necessarily the latter.

tem wrote:I think you're misunderstanding them. Huffing is akin to sniffing glue -- taking huge whiffs of aeresol fumes, solvents, gasoline, etc .. in order to get high. It kills brain cells very quickly.

Actually Tem, with all due respect, huff is Chicago urban slang that gets thrown around a lot by the kids these days, and usually refers to goods or people of low quality.

Habibi wrote:

tem wrote:I think you're misunderstanding them. Huffing is akin to sniffing glue -- taking huge whiffs of aeresol fumes, solvents, gasoline, etc .. in order to get high. It kills brain cells very quickly.

Actually Tem, with all due respect, huff is Chicago urban slang that gets thrown around a lot by the kids these days, and usually refers to goods or people of low quality.

particularly marijuana

dansch wrote:Just in case I was behind the times and some hot new drug was out there, I checked the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and of the huge variety of drugs they list, only Alcohol and Methamphetamine list violence as an effect. If these kids had consumed "low to moderate doses of alcohol" that could "increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse." Of course, perhaps kids these days are taking a lot of meth.

I'm certainly not an expert in this type of thing. But a lot of the other drugs on that list produce a loss of inhibitions, delusions, anxiety, etc. Perhaps these kids were completely sober, but I would imagine that more than just alcohol and meth could increase the chance that a bad outcome would occur.

Darren72 wrote:

dansch wrote:Just in case I was behind the times and some hot new drug was out there, I checked the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and of the huge variety of drugs they list, only Alcohol and Methamphetamine list violence as an effect. If these kids had consumed "low to moderate doses of alcohol" that could "increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse." Of course, perhaps kids these days are taking a lot of meth.

I'm certainly not an expert in this type of thing. But a lot of the other drugs on that list produce a loss of inhibitions, delusions, anxiety, etc. Perhaps these kids were completely sober, but I would imagine that more than just alcohol and meth could increase the chance that a bad outcome would occur.

While this may be true, it's hard to imagine that outbursts of violence tend to be preceded by bouts of loud laughter. The Joker notwithstanding.

CCCB wrote:They were immediately obvious because they were laughing and loud

Bill wrote:

Darren72 wrote:It is the store's responsibility to deal with the situation.

Yes, it is. And if such incidents were to be recurring and not sufficiently dealt with, and the wider community learned of that - many people would no longer patronize the establishment. Let's all hope this was a one-time, isolated incident.

Aieee. I'm not going to stop driving from Northwest Indiana to get some of that fine fried fare just because black kids may or may not step in out of the cold, talk rough for a couple minutes, and leave. Come on. This discussion is silly. If the situation - that is, teenagers coming in out of the cold without ordering anything - becomes epidemic and paying customers have nowhere to sit, I am certain Gus would say something like "Alright, kids, order something or take it somewhere else." The entire premise of calling the cops about this - even non-emergency - is absurd; gosh, I hope next time my old, nerdy, white friends and I use some colorful language in public no one calls the cops on us. You may not like it, but people are loud and obnoxious. It bugs me, too. But the kids probably weren't on drugs, and any time you go in public you run the risk of your children encountering "bad behavior".

All in all,
I think that the situation being described here would be an instance for me to show my kids that standing up to bullies*, and / or what you believe in, is warranted. There are times when walking away from a situation is warranted as well, but sticking up for kids who do not need to hear language like that, and who may be too young to stick up for themselves is the correct thing to do, IMO.

*From the description, it doesn't sound like they were being physical bullies, just verbally offensive - even though it was not directed at anyone in particular. Profanities don't bother me at all, and I have a sailor's mouth for the most part, but not in front of the kids, please. Like I said, if there were no kids around, I'd eavesdrop, and hopefully get a giggle out of what they were saying. With the kids around tho, a prompt voicing of my opinion on why they should refrain, and what consequences they face if they do not is well within reason, IMO.

I was once with my nephew at a movie. Someone's cell phone rang, and the person answered it and started having a conversation. My nephew (about 21 at the time) said in a very loud voice, "Shut the F.... UP!" The phone message was immediately terminated, and the surrounding audience murmered approval...some applause. Sometimes people just don't know, and someone has to tell them. I would have used a nicer word and nicer tone, but a lasting impression was made on a lot of people that day.

white, black, teen, old person, nerd, hillbilly, etc. You swear repeatedly around my daughter I'm gonna call you on it.

Habibi wrote:Actually Tem, with all due respect, huff is Chicago urban slang that gets thrown around a lot by the kids these days, and usually refers to goods or people of low quality.

Apparently it also means "...someone who's buff but fat at the same time."

Darren72 wrote:I'm certainly not an expert in this type of thing. But a lot of the other drugs on that list produce a loss of inhibitions, delusions, anxiety, etc. Perhaps these kids were completely sober, but I would imagine that more than just alcohol and meth could increase the chance that a bad outcome would occur.

I don't disagree that other drugs could impair judgement and the like, I'm just trying to be realistic that teenage kids (if they're high at all) are likely to have a couple of beers or smoke a little pot, just like they did when I was a teen and when most of the folks on this board were teens. The idea that the world is full of drug-crazed teenagers who are one stern adult's comment away from snapping in a violent rage of fury just seems crazy to me.

Judging from across the room that a couple of kids might be high, and as a result not telling them to mind their manners for fear of violent retribution just seems a bit harsh.

MincyBits wrote:The entire premise of calling the cops about this - even non-emergency - is absurd; gosh, I hope next time my old, nerdy, white friends and I use some colorful language in public no one calls the cops on us. You may not like it, but people are loud and obnoxious. It bugs me, too. But the kids probably weren't on drugs, and any time you go in public you run the risk of your children encountering "bad behavior".

Well said!

-Dan

razbry wrote:I was once with my nephew at a movie. Someone's cell phone rang, and the person answered it and started having a conversation. My nephew (about 21 at the time) said in a very loud voice, "Shut the F.... UP!" The phone message was immediately terminated, and the surrounding audience murmered approval...some applause.

I'd applaud him too -- then get an usher to eject him for his disruptive profanity. Win-win-win.

hi,

I think people want to go where there is a hospitable environment. Of course, when you consider Wiener Circle, hospitable environment can be very relative. If the customer's don't feel it is provided, they simply don't return.

At a top tier restaurant recently, there was a loud party next to a single diner. After a while, the loud party noticed the single diner was seated far across the room from them. Recognizing they may have been the cause, they sent over a drink to compensate. This single diner declined. I appreciate the customer service offered to the single diner. By distancing people, the restaurant kept both parties happy.

I have been at Sarkis when a bunch of students came in like a flock of gulls. Only one ordered, the others were justing hanging around taking up seats and speaking loudly. Once the single order was settled, they all left together. It is a known teen hang out with a management not particularly interested in maintaining control. I didn't like the atmosphere and have never bothered to return once my curiosity was satisfied.

I prefer to be where perfect strangers don't impede on my happiness or I on theirs. If they cross that line, I am not reluctant to exchange words, either.

Regards,

While I agree that it's pretty pathetic that shameless punks (and I believe that shameless punkhood transcends age, gender, socioeconomic status, & ethnicity) might behave this way in public, and can definitely see how speaking up, in theory, would be immediately cathartic and might give one the feeling of standing up for basic decency, I'm curious - what is the expected outcome of speaking up?

I would guess that these kids looking remorsefully at their feet, mumbling "sorry sir", and walking out of the restaurant with their tails between their legs would have around the same odds as a pair of meteors falling out of the sky and leaving two smoldering craters where they stood (which would be pretty satisfying to watch...I'd feel bad about the two holes punched in Gus's roof though).

Anyone whose sense of consideration & courtesy is so lacking, whose upbringing so supbar, that they would wander around loudly dropping f- and n-bombs with total disregard for everyone around them, would likely respond to the request to watch their mouths with something along the lines of, "**** you ************, I'll **** your *** up, ******* *****". What's the "correct response" to that sort of teenage bravado? Escalating to physical violence? Stepping back and "letting the kids win"?

I agree that it's definitely a teaching moment, but I'm picturing something more along the lines of, "Weren't those kids that just left obnoxious? That's an awful way to behave, not just in public, but anytime."

Edited to fix a sentence fragment in the first paragraph

Very well said, Khaopaat. I'm a little baffled at the idea of injecting ones self and children into a situation.