TheAgitator.com
“It’s Like Robbing a Bank”
Thursday, April 10th, 2008Man buys $157 in groceries, forgets the case of soda under his cart. Cop arrests him, handcuffs him, and the guy spends 3 1/2 hours in the slammer.
MORE: Looks like the guy now admits he grabbed the soda on the way out of the store. Which makes him a liar and a petty thief (and me a little red-faced for not seeing the update).
Jeebus this is nuts. Can’t a person make an honest mistake anymore?
Consumerist updated this story today:
http://consumerist.com/378232/surveillance-tape-shows-man-who-forgot-case-of-soda-is-a-thief-and-a-liar
Turns out the guy really is a thief….
Here’s the latest update:
Our apologies to the Brooklyn, Ohio police department. New security camera footage released by the Brooklyn police department shows that the man who claimed he “forgot” the case of pop under his shopping cart actually grabbed it on his way out of the store! Now the man admits that he lied to reporters.
Published here:
http://consumerist.com/378232/surveillance-tape-shows-man-who-forgot-case-of-soda-is-a-thief-and-a-liar
It may not be like robbing a bank, but as the update at the top of the link states, he was a liar. See here.
Video footage reveals man grabbed soda on his way out of the store, is in fact a liar and a thief.
“Man buys $157 in groceries, forgets the case of soda under his cart. Cop arrests him, handcuffs him, and the guy spends 3 1/2 hours in the slammer.’
Replace “forgets” with “steals” and its a little different….and at this point, appears to be the actual truth. You know there ARE people out there that actually committ the crimes they are charged with and then claim they didn’t do it. I would go so far as to say that would be the rule rather than the exception…just go to any jail or prison and take a poll : )
Reminds me of a story I was sent at my site, of a girl who had just had reconstructive surgery and accidentally left the store with a display sample of cosmetics, offered to pay for it when she realized what happened, but was sent to jail and forced to go without medication because of it.
http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com/2008/03/woman-recovering-from-surgery-denied.html
Talk about the punishment not fitting the supposed crime, fortunately a judge dropped the charges, eventually.
(worse was the story after that which a woman sent me about how she was arrested, had her home ransacked by a SWAT team, and was subjected to a coercive interrogation while half naked in a squad car…. all because she was an alleged victim of abuse here: http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com/2008/03/woman-reports-mistreatment-by-king.html)
“You know there ARE people out there that actually committ the crimes they are charged with and then claim they didn’t do it.”
So what’s your point? The system worked like it is supposed to in this case. The guy claimed he was innocent, then the cops proved he wasn’t. There’s certainly nothing wrong with assuming he was innocent… you know, until proven guilty.
At the risk of being overly insulting, you shouldn’t be red-face for not noticing the update. You should be red-faced for blindly accepting the accused’s claims in the first place, based on an openly one-sided account of what happened. You’ve done great work helping people realize that cops’ claims should be examined critically, don’t forget to apply the same care to the claims of the accused too.
roy - I repeat comment #8. Innocence is supposed to be where we start, distrust of the police and prosecutors is a keystone of our justice system.
Way too often these days we assume people are guilty just because the cops say they are, so I have no problem with Balko providing a bit of equal time. No way should his face be red.
Matt -Presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing for the legal process, and a fine way to treat people, but presumption is not for objective truth. If Radley had written that the accused had claimed to have a good explanation, and should be treated as innocent, I’d have no complaint. Instead he wrote a simple statement of fact, “man … forgets the case of soda under his cart”, with no real support.
+1 for Roy; -10 for Matt M. The best way to counter pro-police bias is with truth, not with anti-police bias. If we reflexively assume the police are always in the wrong, or that an arrested person is innocent, that makes our arguments less effective and easier to dismiss. The presumption of innocence is merely a point of law, not a point of fact; there is no reason to think a guy is innocent, merely because he and his wife say so. In Radley’s defense the story he linked to reported it very credulously, so Radley is guilty of second-hand credulousness, but still…
I agree with Matt…the presumption of innocence is for the courts. Point of fact is that the great majority of cops aren’t lying or fabricating evidence when they arrest people so we shouldn’t automatically assume that they are simply because some police do lie, or because we don’t like cops or the government in general, or because we might empathize with the accused. Each case should be judged on its own facts and merits and both sides of the story should be heard before we start condemning either side.
That said, I think Radley does a great job tracking down stories of police abuses or overreactions and reporting them accurately…and for this story, everyone’s entitled to an “oops” every once in awhile, so long as they’re willing to admit it when they recognize an error (which he has).
roy: I hate those sort of wishy-washy “Bob claims something” in reporting. Report what you know right now, correct later, get it right in the end. This is the web, not a newspaper… retractions can’t be ignored.
Matt: -10 is a bit harsh, isn’t it? I just think we should always believe a citizen over the system until the system proves otherwise. That’s a very American belief, that the people rule over the bureaucracy, not the other way around. The police and other public servants can handle it… they’re basically paid for us to distrust them.
UCrawford: I didn’t say we need to assume that the police are lying, just that we shouldn’t assume they are right. Perfectly good cops and prosecutors make mistakes.
“Both sides of the story should be heard before we start condemning either side.”
That’s a good sentiment, in theory. But usually, in a case like this, we never (or only much later) hear the other side of the story. Take the Frederick case, for example. We’re probably going to have to wait weeks or months to hear what evidence the police have… in the meantime, an innocent (IMHO) man sits in jail.
If the police want public opinion on their side, they need to release evidence faster. If, instead, they want to hold things back so they get more convictions, then they just need to get used to being pilloried in the meantime.
Matt Moore,
I agree…which is why my default position is usually to be skeptical of the police when something doesn’t add up and critical of them when they take shortcuts. And I don’t get bent out of shape when the state loses or botches a case and the accused goes free…that’s what is supposed to happen when the state doesn’t do its job and because I also don’t automatically equate a conviction or acquittal in court with guilt or innocence on a personal level (e.g. O.J. Simpson…who actually did murder his wife, despite what the verdict said). But I also realize that when somebody is accused of a crime it’s very likely that they may be guilty (that’s just the odds) and that’s why I think it’s also important to hear both sides before deciding to call either side a liar or accuse them of wrongdoing.
I’m squarely in Frederick’s camp on that case, and considering that (last I heard) the cops still hadn’t given a detailed accounting of what happened months after the incident I think it’s more than fair to start blasting them for being corrupt/incompetent/liars. I believe public officials should be accountable and required to present their side of the story and the evidence they have when asked, whether or not it undermines their case. In the case of Frederick, they certainly haven’t done that. I just don’t think that we should automatically assume the cops/government are lying right as the case happens…we should reserve judgment until we’ve heard both sides (or until one side outright refuses to provide information).
We’re in complete agreement on that one. It may seem counterintuitive to cops and prosecutors sometimes, but I believe that openness and transparency in what they do will actually help them rather than hurt them…so long as they’re actually trying to operate in the public interest. It’s when they get secretive that people assume the worst (usually with good reason).
It’s unfortunate that police are so untrusted that we jumped to the conclusion that the policeman was being overzealous.
Having worked retail, a hell I would wish on only a few people, I would of waited to see if the video was released.
Almost any store now days has video cameras, and for many reasons, this just one. The crap some people try to get away with is just amazing. Screaming police abuse, racism, etc just one way to try getting away with being a thief.
Though this is one of the few the police actually handled correctly. Amazing what a little openess will do to help the police. Sadly, next time I suspect they’ll be back to their usual stonewalling next screwup.