Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:29 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 TN: No charges for Cop who shoved 71 y.o. Walmart Greeter 
Author Message
 Post subject: TN: No charges for Cop who shoved 71 y.o. Walmart Greeter
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:23 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Quote:
Officer Will Not Face Charges In Shoving Of 71-Year-Old Wal-Mart Greeter

posted January 6, 2009

Chattanooga Police Det. Kenneth Freeman will not face charges in an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Wal-Mart in Collegedale to the floor after he tried to stop him while doing a receipts check.

Collegedale Police declined to bring charges, then the employee, Bill Walker, filled out a complaint himself. Collegedale Judge Kevin Wilson has reviewed the complaint and did not issue an assault charge.

In the incident on Christmas Eve, Mr. Walker said an alarm went off when Det. Freeman and another city police officer, Edwin McPherson, were leaving the store.

He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor. He said the officer then hovered over him as he lay on the floor.

A police report says a customer then told Det. Freeman, "You can't push down an old man" and began struggling with him. It says Det. Freeman then shoved that man, Gholom Ghassedi, through a glass door. Officers found Mr. Ghassedi with blood on his neck, but he declined medical treatment.
Sgt. McPherson broke up the fight between Det. Freeman and Mr. Ghassedi.

Rick Watkins of Wal-Mart said an alarm was sounded when the 48-year-old Freeman walked by, causing Mr. Walker to try to stop him. Sgt. McPherson had already stopped for a receipt check.

An officer from the Chattanooga Police Department's Internal Affairs division arrived at the scene to look into the incident.

Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman, saying the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer, there were no injuries requiring medical attention, the suspect is not a flight risk, and "there were no other crimes committed along with the possible simple assault."

He said the investigation would be ongoing, but he said he "was unable to determine at the scene that there was any intent to commit an assault."

Collegedale Officer Paul Crosby said when he arrived at the scene he found a large group of people gathered outside the door of the store. He said some "were obviously angry and were pointing fingers and yelling."

He said one man was "livid" and was pointing his finger at Det. Freeman while saying, "You are a police officer? Shame on you."

Det. Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:41 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
An alarm from one of those detectors does not give store personnel authority to physically detain anyone. The store should have trained Walker to refrain from physical contact, and who knows, perhaps they did. While the injury is unfortunate, Freeman was within his rights.

As much as they would like to do so, stores cannot mandate compliance with bag checks or shoplifting alarms. Their recourse is limited to asking people to leave unless they see someone take an item from the store and leave without paying for it. As it should be.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
What the HELL????

Quote:
In the incident on Christmas Eve, Mr. Walker said an alarm went off when Det. Freeman and another city police officer, Edwin McPherson, were leaving the store.

He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor. He said the officer then hovered over him as he lay on the floor.

<...>

Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman, saying the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer....



Quote:
Det. Freeman then shoved that man, Gholom Ghassedi, through a glass door. Officers found Mr. Ghassedi with blood on his neck, but he declined medical treatment.

<...>

Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman, saying the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer, there were no injuries requiring medical attention, the suspect is not a flight risk, and "there were no other crimes committed along with the possible simple assault."

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:14 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
They were just taxing walmart, maybe wally world forgot to pay their protection money that week.

Yeah, retail folks don't have a right to put their hands on you.
Quote:
reached to try to stop Det. Freeman
Was that reached as in tried to grab the detective's unit :oops: I don't think so, was that reached like put his arm up in the officer's path of travel? Sounds a whole lot more likely. The word "reached" is being used, rather than grabed, tackled, or something that would make Freeman's actions justified.

The officer just gets another free pass to assault somebody. I wish I was special like that and could just go around shoving and hitting people (I don't really, that'd be sarcasm). Andrew is spot on about how the stuff doesn't quite line up. I am sure the door glass at a walmart is reasonably thick and all or we'd here of a lot more smash and grabs. It can't feel good to get pushed through one.

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:44 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
Most electric sliding doors that you see at stores are "break-away." They ride in a track but if you run into them when exiting the store one side will pop off and swing open. Give it a try sometime.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:31 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Wright County
SultanOfBrunei wrote:
Most electric sliding doors that you see at stores are "break-away." They ride in a track but if you run into them when exiting the store one side will pop off and swing open. Give it a try sometime.


We used to do that all the time when I was a kid at my first job (Cub foods; :ack: )

_________________
Get Off My Lawn.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:55 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
mnglocker wrote:
We used to do that all the time when I was a kid at my first job (Cub foods; :ack: )

HAHAHA!!! Same here! Cub Foods, too!

It was always great when you were helping someone out to their car or something and would pretend to look at them while walking headlong into the door.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:13 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Well they cant physically touch you but they can detain you for 1 hour in mn if they have reasonable suspicion you stole something. Remember the menards incident. :evil:

_________________
But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
Opinion of the Court
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:36 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:19 pm
Posts: 333
jrp267 wrote:
Well they cant physically touch you but they can detain you for 1 hour in mn if they have reasonable suspicion you stole something. Remember the menards incident. :evil:



This seems to be a common misconception.

Here is the relevant law in MN.

629.366 THEFT IN BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS; DETAINING SUSPECTS.
Subdivision 1.Circumstances justifying detention.(a) A merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person if the merchant or employee has reasonable cause to believe:

(1) that the person has taken, or is taking, an article of value without paying for it, from the possession of the merchant in the merchant's place of business or from a vehicle or premises under the merchant's control;

(2) that the taking is done with the intent to wrongfully deprive the merchant of the property or the use or benefit of it; or

(3) that the taking is done with the intent to appropriate the use of the property to the taker or any other person.

(b) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (a), a merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person for any of the following purposes:

(1) to require the person to provide identification or verify identification;

(2) to inquire as to whether the person possesses unpurchased merchandise taken from the merchant and, if so, to receive the merchandise;

(3) to inform a peace officer; or

(4) to institute criminal proceedings against the person.

(c) The person detained shall be informed promptly of the purpose of the detention and may not be subjected to unnecessary or unreasonable force, nor to interrogation against the person's will. A merchant or merchant's employee may not detain a person for more than one hour unless:

(1) the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the person to a peace officer, in which case the person may be detained until a peace officer has accepted custody of or released the person; or

(2) the person is a minor, or claims to be, and the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the minor to a peace officer or the minor's parent, guardian, or custodian, in which case the minor may be detained until the peace officer, parent, guardian, or custodian has accepted custody of the minor.

(d) If at any time the person detained requests that a peace officer be summoned, the merchant or merchant's employee must notify a peace officer immediately.

Subd. 2.Arrest.Upon a charge being made by a merchant or merchant's employee, a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable cause for believing that the person has committed or attempted to commit the offense described in subdivision 1.

Subd. 3.Immunity.No merchant, merchant's employee, or peace officer is criminally or civilly liable for any action authorized under subdivision 1 or 2 if the arresting person's action is based upon reasonable cause.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:56 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
629.366 THEFT IN BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS; DETAINING SUSPECTS.

You didn't copy Subd. 4 which excepts peace officers from charges under subdivisions 1 or 2 because of their low wages.

:lol:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:59 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:04 am
Posts: 337
Location: FarmLakeMount
motoman wrote:
629.366 THEFT IN BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS; DETAINING SUSPECTS.
Subdivision 1.Circumstances justifying detention.(a) A merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person if the merchant or employee has reasonable cause to believe:

(1) that the person has taken, or is taking, an article of value without paying for it, from the possession of the merchant in the merchant's place of business or from a vehicle or premises under the merchant's control;

(2) that the taking is done with the intent to wrongfully deprive the merchant of the property or the use or benefit of it; or

(3) that the taking is done with the intent to appropriate the use of the property to the taker or any other person.


Question - is the activation of the alarm "reasonable cause"? Those things malfunction all the time; I've been told on numerous occasion to ignore it and keep going because it is broken. I had one guy at Wally World stop me to check the bags after setting the alarm off. He checked everything and looked at me puzzled as asked if I had anything else. Thanks for the vote of confidnce - guilty until proven innocent. Also, what is the definition of "reasonable cause"?

_________________
Liberty is preserved with 4 boxes: soap, jury, ballot, and cartridge.

Minneapolis Police/Fire Dispatcher


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:37 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:59 am
Posts: 300
Location: Near Hwy 101 & Cty Rd 5
Who cares about MN laws here folks. I believe the point has been missed.

Maybe the 71 yo did do something not within the guidelines of stopping a possible shoplifter. BUT.....

a member of law enforcement in the community first assaults him, then proceeds to assault another man for doing the right thing and sticking up for the elderly???? Any of us would have gone to to pokey right quick.

And I loved Andrew's observation. This happened with another officer standing right there, and he didn't seem to intervene in any way, nor put his fellow officer in his place.

I was not there, and therefore do not know all of the "facts". But this sure looks very wrong in so many ways.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, and realize this is not about what the laws are for detaining assumed law breakers. Rather, let's focus on the actual laws that were broken by members of law enforcement.


MM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:04 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
The courts are fickle.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1L3OyF ... t#PPA73,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=icANqT ... t#PPA43,M1
Statutes vary.

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/023/0093_1.htm - Mississippi

And a related article on bag checks:

http://works.bepress.com/context/victor ... ewcontent/

===========

The opinion of most store security analysts is that stores are on shaky ground at best to detain someone on the strength of EAS (electronic article surveillance) alarms alone. The problem is that EAS systems that are actually working and broadly used (as opposed to decoys and systems set up to detect only a few high-value items) are prone to false alarms, due to mistakes made by clerks, ineffectual deactivation due to inherent limitations of the tags (which have to be low-cost in most applications), false detection of other items, and deliberate trips by store security looking for an excuse to detain someone.

A store actually detaining someone for an EAS trip alone would leave themselves open to false arrest charges and could be compelled to produce testimony from store employees regarding the incidence of false alarms. The probable cause argument would be weak if most of the alarms, upon investigation, prove to be false.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/securi ... fting.html

Review of the several technologies used for EAS:

http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/e ... erview.asp


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:08 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
a911scanner wrote:
Who cares about MN laws here folks. I believe the point has been missed.

Maybe the 71 yo did do something not within the guidelines of stopping a possible shoplifter. BUT.....


I do not believe that being an off-duty police officer means giving up ones right to be secure in their person and posessions.

I do not believe that because the person making an ineffective yet physical attempt at detention was 71 years of age means that compliance is mandatory.

Maybe the response was disproportional. I don't know. I wasn't there.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:24 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
MostlyHarmless wrote:
I do not believe that because the person making an ineffective yet physical attempt at detention was 71 years of age means that compliance is mandatory.

Maybe the response was disproportional. I don't know. I wasn't there.

Whether the 71 year old was justified in detaining him or not, he shouldn't have used force against him (regardless of the fact that he is a cop, you wouldn't have pushed him).

_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group