Local News

Fayetteville mall tightens restrictions on unaccompanied minors after fight

Posted December 27, 2016

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Following a Monday afternoon fight that led to an evacuation, unsupervised teenagers will not be allowed to visit the Cross Creek Mall after 5 p.m. for the remainder of the week, unless they are accompanied by an adult.

Authorities said that a confrontation began in the mall food court at about 4:40 p.m. Monday. Fayetteville Police said several people called 911 saying they heard what they thought were gunshots. Officers said there was no evidence that shots were fired at the mall prior to the evacuation.

Police believe the panic started with a fight between teenagers in the food court and escalated.

Beginning Tuesday through Dec. 31, all visitors under the age of 18 are required to be accompanied by a parent or guardian over the age of 21 after 5 p.m.

Beginning at 5 p.m., all visitors under the age of 18 must leave the mall or be joined by an adult. Those who refuse to leave the property when asked may be prosecuted for trespassing.

"I worry about my kids, and they are 20 and 22," said Cynthia Lowder. "My son happened to be out here yesterday so I think it is a good idea to enforce the rule."

But not everyone is calling the "youth escort policy" the right step.

"It's limiting freedom basically. It's pretty much Marshall Law and I kind of don't agree with that," said Kelen Edwards.

The Cross Creek Mall already had an escort policy in place that required all teens to be accompanied by a parent or guardian after 6 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

Monday’s incident at the Cross Creek Mall was one of several similar incidents around the country. There were similar disturbances at malls in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Colorado. In Memphis, police arrested several people following fights at two malls there. No one was injured and no gunshots were fired, despite reports indicating otherwise.

7 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Edward Anderson Dec 28, 11:00 a.m.
    user avatar

    ""It's limiting freedom basically. It's pretty much Marshall Law and I kind of don't agree with that," said Kelen Edwards."
    Seriously?! Asking minors to behave themselves is Marshall Law?
    A) what is Marshall Law? Try Martial Law instead, WRAL
    B) minors are not required to go to the mall, Kellen Edwards. This privately-imposed rule is intended to keep store owners, well-behaved customers and the general public safe. If these *HOODLUMS* were better-behaved, no restriction would be necessary. So, teach your children to behave and they won't be treated like criminals!

  • Dan Wilder Dec 28, 7:43 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Private property...not public or government property...owners make the rules. They have an obligation to protect their decent customers from rampaging scum.

  • James Hicks Dec 28, 3:04 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Yeah. I agree I hate to see this happen as well, but it's perfectly fine... and indeed prudent I would say. I remember roaming our local mall for hours, but then again we behaved a bit more in those days. The truly sad part about this is that the people involved don't even know they are their own worse enemy. Since they'll no longer be able to hang out at the mall, they'll congregate to other less public areas. That in turn will lead to these incidents becoming more violent.

    They seem to think they are hurting someone else (The man, the businesses, innocent shoppers, etc), but in truth all of that will go on fine, and a security guard at the door will tell them to head the other way. And I'm fine with that.

  • James Grimes Jr. Dec 27, 11:11 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Its not. Cross Creek Mall is on private property, that allows public access. That public access can be revoked when the property owner finds it necessary to do so. With this incident, the property owner finds it necessary to limit the movement of minors on the property after a certain time. I'm sad to see it happen, but if minors refuse to behave themselves, then so be it.

  • Matt Clinton Dec 27, 10:47 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    It's not.

  • Drew Savicki Dec 27, 7:02 p.m.
    user avatar

    That sounds unconstitutional.

  • Benjamin Kite Dec 27, 2:34 p.m.
    user avatar

    No need to be alarmed. Afterall, this is Fayetteville. Just saying.