WotC may have sent the Pinkertons to a magic leakers home. Update: WotC confirms it and has a response.

[Snarf Zagyg]

Assuming they happened, checking in with all the neighbors feels gross to me. Putting a foot in the door to keep it open feels gross, and makes me wonder about legality (about both doing it and interaction with castle doctrine laws in some places)

Now I really do wish he had a doorbell camera system or the like.

FWIW, they updated the article and buried the following within it-

Wizards of the Coast says it “strongly refutes this depiction of events, which contradicts both the report from the investigation as well as the conversation between the individual and the Wizards of the Coast representative after the interaction in question.” The company also stated that “under no circumstances would we instruct any employee or contracted agency to intimidate an individual.”

....

According to Wizards of the Coast, the company “initiated several phone calls to the individual in order to make contact, though we understand why he would be reluctant to answer an unknown number. When we were unable to make contact by phone, local contractors were asked to try to make contact and request help in the investigation, including the return of the product which can aid in our investigation.” The company also confirmed that it offered to replace all of the unreleased product with the correct, released cards.

It's unfortunate that they did not release the full statement that they were provided, although it is unlikely that there would be much more.

Obviously, you cannot trust this type of statement as proof of anything, just as you cannot (or at least should not) trust any individual's statement. It is entirely possible for all statements to be true (for example, the investigators relayed a sanitized version of events, and the YouTuber didn't report anything untoward to the employee on the phone despite it happening). It's also possible that the truth lies in between- that the YouTuber is embellishing, but did feel intimidated and is trying to make sense of it post hoc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2:18 mark, "This is no ones business but mine and Wizards of The Coat," and everyone else watching this video. Lol.

His face isn’t on camera. Their behavior definitely does seem out of bounds. I mean we can blame him I suppose for talking about it ? But not sure how making a YouTube video means you should be ok with Pinkertons lying to your neighbors about you and getting the whole neighborhood involved in your personal business. I make YouTube videos. Wouldn’t want some knocking on my neighbors doors to complain about me or accuse me of early reviewing something when the comments section would be a more appropriate place. And if some company sent Pinkerton to chat with all my neighbors I would be rightfully upset and may even want to discuss it on the channel (because I don’t have recourse to hire a lawyer or Pinkerton but I could use my channel to fight back)

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I did read the story. The entirity of it, and other places within the story.

You will note I didn't comment on either stories I linked or the Pinkertons' actions. So I'm not sure why you're implying I did and made a factional error. I stated, quite closely, that these were the only major stories I could find involving the Pinkertons from a Google search.

It was not my intention to imply you made a factual error.

But now I will comment on said story.

He may have been a subcontractor, but he wasn't licensed to do the job he did. That is pretty appauling when said job involves security and potential lethal force.

Agreed. He should have had a license. I think where we differ is where we assign fault, what fault we assign, and the effect that license had on the situation the guard and the protester found themselves in that day. I'm guessing you assign Pinkertons that fault the whole situation. I'd agree that Pinkerton is at fault for the guard being hired without being licensed. I'd assign fault to the subcontractor for not doing the job they were hired to do by Pinkerton, which was to hire qualified individuals to serve as security. I'd assign fault o the guard for not having his license. I think were we differ is in assigning fault for the protester losing his life. I assume you assign that fault o Pinkerton. I'd disagree.

The man who was shot and killed was not 'innocent' due to his aggressive actions and use of a spray, but outside looking in, shooting and killing him was an escalation that is extremely disproportionate. Why were things not de-escalated - why was the immediate response from this subcontractor - who is STILL HIRED BY THE PINKERTONS, AND SO THEREFORE THE PINKERTONS DO CARRY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THEY HIRE IN THIS CONTEXT - to kill him? I can see why the contractor in question was charged with murder, though the charges were dropped, and Pinkerton is now - after a few years - allowed to operate in the area again.

I'm going to avoid discussing the right or wrong of the guard and th protester. That's a conversation that is sure to lead to either one of us, or both, and possibly anyone else that joins in, getting into trouble with mods. So, let's just avoid that part and focus on the Pinkerton's licensing issue. According to the story,

After the shooting, the Department of Excise & Licenses issued an order to show cause as to why Pinkerton should not have its security license suspended or revoked. Initially, it looked like Pinkerton would be able to keep working in the Mile High City, as the security agency and the Denver City Attorney's Office came to a settlement agreement. However, Ashley Kilroy, then-executive director of Excise & Licenses, rejected the deal — leading to a hearing in February 2021.

So, there was an order issued by the Department of Excise & Licenses giving reason as to why Pinkerton should not lose its license. The Executive Director of Excise & Licenses disagreed, so it went to a hearing.

An administrative officer serving as the judge during that hearing concluded that Pinkerton's license should be suspended for six months for failure to comply with local laws, and found that the company was also responsible for "acts and omissions" of the subcontractor that hired Dolloff. By that point, the subcontractor, Jason Isborn, had already agreed to surrender his security license to Excise & Licenses.

At the administrative hearing, Pinkerton got in trouble for the guard not being licensed (complying with local laws) and were also responsible for the subcontractor's failure to ensure the guard was licensed. So while the subcontractor was at fault for not making sure the guard had a license, Pinkerton hired them, and they are responsible for what the subcontractor does or doesn't do. That isn't the same as being responsible for the actual incident and the protester losing his life, though. The subcontractor also surrendered their security license. I'm guessing that means they are out of business. I may be wrong. Pinkerton lost their license for 6-months.

In June of that year, Kilroy accepted the findings of the hearing officer, but also decided that Pinkerton should lose its security license in Denver indefinitely. After that, Pinkerton appealed Kilroy's ruling in Denver District Court; in June 2022, Judge David H. Goldberg ruled that Pinkerton could keep its security license, overruling Kilroy's decision.

The judge granted the appeal on narrow grounds, siding with Pinkerton based on its argument that a section of a Denver ordinance aimed at license suspension or revocation does not apply to the company, since the law states that "any act or omission committed by any employee, agent, or independent contractor that occurs in the course of his or her employment, agency, or contract with the licensee shall be imputed to the licensee or permittee for purposes of imposing any suspension, revocation or other sanction on the licensee or permittee."

The Executive Director of Excise & Licenses, Kilroy (cool name) accepted the findings but took away Pinkerton's license indefinitely. Pinkerton appealed, and a judge sided with Pinkerton on narrow grounds.

If this ordinance section had simply stated "his," it would have implied that the category included corporations, Goldberg determined. However, since the law instead uses "his or her," it applies only to natural persons and was not applicable to Pinkerton, he ruled. Goldberg did not address the other arguments before him.

These are the narrow grounds.

"The Court finds and concludes that the Director abused her discretion and Pinkerton’s revocation is set aside and reversed," Goldberg wrote. But by the time the judge ruled, Pinkerton no longer had a valid security license in Denver, since it had expired just a few days after the October 2020 shooting."

The judge found that Kilroy had abused her discretion and reversed her decision to take away Pinkerton's license.

So, can we agree that Pinkerton is at fault for not ensuring the guard was licensed? Yeah, I think we could. I think if Pinkerton, or any other company, hires subcontractors to hire contractors to do a job, the company should ensure the subcontractor they hire is doing their job properly. Can you blame Pinkerton for the protester losing his life? The situation the guard and the protester found themselves in would not have been affected by the guard having a license.

These actions are pretty murky, whether legal or not, morally. From an Irish perspective, this would be very explosive and damning.

How about from a Quebecoise perspective? I'm joking, of course. I'm not sure what you mean by "an Irish perspective."

Honestly - if you wanted people to have clarity, why didn't you write out the facts of the case yourself, and demanded I did?

I didn't demand you did anything. I'm not sure why you feel I demanded such actions. All I said is that if anyone wants more clarity, they should read up on the story.

The reason I did not get into discussing the article is because it will most likely lead to a discussion that will violate some rule on what can be discussed on these forums. Also, once you get into discussing these topics, you can have others get riled up and emotional and upset and start attacking and insulting people. I'm sure you and I could have a civil discussion about this, and you'd probably be surprised how much we actually agree on, but I don't know how civil reactions to your posts or mine might be from others.

So that's why I didn't get into writing the facts about the article.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

His face isn’t on camera. Their behavior definitely does seem out of bounds. I mean we can blame him I suppose for talking about it ?

Just to be clear, what would we be blaming him for? I think we are talking about WoTC sending someone to retrieve their merch, I can agree with that. Pretty sure that's what the main discussion of this thread is. If it is something else you are referring to, i'd need some clarification, so I don't make it seem as if you'd said something you didn't.

But not sure how making a YouTube video means you should be ok with Pinkertons lying to your neighbors about you and getting the whole neighborhood involved in your personal business.

I didn't say that. Did you? Or someone else?

I make YouTube videos. Wouldn’t want some knocking on my neighbors doors to complain about me or accuse me of early reviewing something when the comments section would be a more appropriate place.

The comments section of your YouTube videos is where WoTC should tell you you shouldn't be doing early reviews of their products?

And if some company sent Pinkerton to chat with all my neighbors I would be rightfully upset and may even want to discuss it on the channel (because I don’t have recourse to hire a lawyer or Pinkerton but I could use my channel to fight back)

Hey, you and me both could agree that it is your right to discuss it on your channel, or any other public forum you want. No arguement from me against that. I just find it funny when someone claims this is something between him and WoTC and then broadcasts it to all their followers. It's between me, WoTC, and all my YouTube subscribers, so don't infringe on my private matter which I am publicly discussing but no one else should get into my personal life that is being publicly discussed by me with all of you.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Can you blame Pinkerton for the protester losing his life? The situation the guard and the protester found themselves in would not have been affected by the guard having a license.

I think I largely find your post insightful, but this is where I disagree. At the very least, the subcontractor is in part to blame for the protester losing their life, because the person with the armament should not have been in the position they were in - not just because they didn't have a license, but because their training clearly was not aimed at de-escalation.

How about from a Quebecoise perspective? I'm joking, of course. I'm not sure what you mean by "an Irish perspective."

To avoid breaking rules, what I will say is that - from the prospective of someone living in a country where armaments are not common, in both the public and polices' hands, and from being in a place where de-escalation is a key component of police training - that this incident is fairly damning of the security forces involved.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I think I largely find your post insightful,

Thank you. I too find your posts insightful. It's why I rather like having discussions with you. Civility and insightfulness are difficult to come by on the internet.

but this is where I disagree. At the very least, the subcontractor is in part to blame for the protester losing their life, because the person with the armament should not have been in the position they were in - not just because they didn't have a license, but because their training clearly was not aimed at de-escalation.

I'd say it is an assumption that his training wasn't aimed at de-escalation. We don't know what previous training the guard had. All we know is he wasn't licensed at the time. He may have been at some prior moment, but that isn't clear, either.

I'd also argue that even someone who was trained in de-escalation may have reacted in a similar manner. The situation the guard and the protester found themselves in was a highly charged one. The whole place was getting out of hand. We'd also need to assume that the situation could have been de-escalated. We don't know anything about the protester's mental state. Could he have been de-escaleted? I'd like to think the answer is yes, but I can't be sure about that. Could you? Could anyone? What if another person serving as a guard with a license was completely unhinged? Maybe the situation would have ended up worse with bodies all over the place.

To avoid breaking rules, what I will say is that - from the prospective of someone living in a country where armaments are not common, in both the public and polices' hands, and from being in a place where de-escalation is a key component of police training - that this incident is fairly damning of the security forces involved.

Ah, makes sense. I wasn't sure if this meant from a person who is living in Ireland or if it was something else that long-time Enworlders used to signify something else.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Again without breaking rules, I have a deposition towards being sceptical of violence, particularly deadly violence, being used in protests or other situations. It is a failure of security and safety for such situations to happen in so many cases - so the fact cases like this do continue to happen is depressing.

Which, to circle around to the point of the thread - is that clarification around what happened is critical. Biased as I am towards the individual rather than the corporation in this situation, we don't have anything beyond the statements of individuals. But if it is true that intimidating and force projecting tactics were used, that is highly concerning.

The even minor threat of violence should not be used in a case concerning - at the very worst - the leaking of details about a luxury good. It is too extreme.

 

[The Scythian]

I think that focusing on the involvement of Pinkerton misses the point here.

Street level private detective work is, by its very nature, pretty shady. Private detective agencies can't compel anyone to cooperate with their investigations, so they resort to dirty tricks. They lie about who they are or the circumstances of their visit, either to put people at ease or intimidate them, but they don't lie so specifically that they'll get into legal trouble for it. They engage in activities that aren't illegal but are intended to harass the subject into cooperating. They will hint at the threat of things like legal action, police involvement, or imprisonment, but in a deniable way. They rely on people not knowing exactly how much authority the investigators actually have. They thrive on people not knowing their rights.

On top of that, private detective agencies have lawyers who tell them exactly how far they can push things while keeping things technically legal (and, of course, minimizing the risk of a lawsuit).

Anyone in a position to hire a private detective agency knows all of that. That's the service that they're paying for. The Pinkerton brand name might make the optics especially poor, but any private detective agency that WotC hired would have approached things the same way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that focusing on the involvement of Pinkerton misses the point here.

Street level private detective work is, by its very nature, pretty shady. Private detective agencies can't compel anyone to cooperate with their investigations, so they resort to dirty tricks. They lie about who they are or the circumstances of their visit, either to put people at ease or intimidate them, but they don't lie so specifically that they'll get into legal trouble for it. They engage in activities that aren't illegal but are intended to harass the subject into cooperating. They will hint at the threat of things like legal action, police involvement, or imprisonment, but in a deniable way. They rely on people not knowing exactly how much authority the investigators actually have. They thrive on people not knowing their rights.

On top of that, private detective agencies have lawyers who tell them exactly how far they can push things while keeping things technically legal (and, of course, minimizing the risk of a lawsuit).

Anyone in a position to hire a private detective agency knows all of that. That's the service that they're paying for. The Pinkerton brand name might make the optics especially poor, but any private detective agency that WotC hired would have approached things the same way.

Legal and ethical are also not always the same thing. There are ethical bounds journalists are supposed to follow for example, but plenty violate those ethics because they are still within the bounds of the law. And a lot of this gets very shady like you point out. The intimidating effect of having pinkerton agents show up at your house and talk about legal consequences while asking you to erase files and/or return products is going to cause a person to act differently than if it were a simple phone call from a representative at the company

 

[Mannahnin]

Anyone in a position to hire a private detective agency knows all of that. That's the service that they're paying for. The Pinkerton brand name might make the optics especially poor, but any private detective agency that WotC hired would have approached things the same way.

They're paying for these skills, yes. And for a person who's been trained to deal with conflict and potentially adverse reactions to go into a potentially tense situation, rather than exposing an employee who's not trained for those things to unnecessary risks which are outside their job description.

And folks use private companies for this because as a general rule the police are not interested and will not get involved at this level.