TheAgitator.com
Justice Scalia, Any Comment?
Monday, January 12th, 2009The new professionalism in action:
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.
As for those new internal safeguards and barriers against police abuse Justice Scalia is always talking about:
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.”
It’s apparently this particular officer’s second scuffle in two years.
I was probably upset over being turned down from SWAT Unit and got stuck being a plainclothes detective. Boring! Right? You become a police officer to bash heads, not investigate bad checks.
“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.” ”
So, does this mean I can shove 71 year olds around all I want, just as long a cop isn’t physically present to see me?
Or is going through police academy a requirement for shoving old folks around?
Somebody first needs an ass kicking, then to be fired. Do that enough times and these goons might start to realize they aren’t better than everyone else.
I wonder what Det. Freeman stole from Wal-Mart? I mean, having a badge gives you license to steal and assault the elderly, right? The guy who got thrown through the glass shoud have filed a complaint as well.
The guy who got thrown through the glass probably shut up because he was afraid of getting thrown through more glass.
I think it’s only fair given how tough police have it these days that their free pass on speeding and parking violations has been upgraded to include petty theft and assault.
If I had to deal with angry people and negative press coverage the least I’d expect is the chance to let off steam by pushing a few old people around.
I love the detail of how they refuse to press charges against the guy because it wasn’t committed in the presence of an officer. I guess he and his cop buddy don’t count as police officers anymore, since they were both clearly present at the time of the conduct.
Really makes you long for the day of Opie, Andy, and the lone bullet in Barney’s pocket.
FUCK. THE. POLICE.
The link at the beginning of the post returns a 404 error
Oh - here is an ironic mission statement for the Collegedale PD: “It is the vision of the Collegedale Police Department to maintain and improve the confidence and trust of the community, to preserve and strengthen community bonds, and to maintain and continue professional police service. We will “protect with respect”! “
This is the last straw. I am definitely giving up my job and becoming a cop. I mean, I like to drive real fast, and I don’t want to pay parking fines. Sometimes in a store I want things but I don’t have the money on me at the moment. I’ve never been into violence, but who doesn’t just want to hit someone now and again? And certainly every time I look at the Social Security or Medicare deduction on my paycheck I think bad thoughts about old people. Also, according to previous posts by Radley, I’m entitled to take X-boxes and computers off of people I stop. I like those things, too. This is going to be so awesome.
The judge actually wrote a letter to the editor about this: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_142157.asp
Scroll down for interesting responses.
What the fuck does “in the presence of an officer” have to do with whether or not a crime was committed?
A crime is still a crime even if nobody sees you do it. More difficult to prosecute, but a crime nonetheless. In this case, people did witness the crime, but apparently the cop is more credible than a crowd of Wal-Mart shoppers.
Where is the surveillance video? I demand Youtube justice!
Curious about the security cameras in the store. You would think a camera would be recording anything going on at the front of the store.
This link works
I wonder if the Wal*Mart greeter also said, “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas…
For a misdemeanor, an officer must witness the act. This is good. This is so that people aren’t calling the police saying “so and so ran a stop sign” or other such nonsense.
The problem, in this instance, is that a police officer *did* witness it, as did a lot of other people. Just looking at the names, the probably doesn’t count since he’s likely out of jurisdiction.
But more troubling is that it really doesn’t sound like a misdemeanor assault. Put another way, if I treated the cop like this while he’s off duty, would the cops show up and say “well, it’s misdemeanor assault, nothing we can do”.
Probably not.
I agree with a policy that doesn’t allow “fraudulent” arrests; when you make a claim, you should also show evidence. In this case, there is a surveillance video (evidence) seen by the investigating officer and the judge.
Shouldn’t evidence trump whether or not a cop was there?
The greeter and the customer should just be damn glad they weren’t charged with assault. The nerve of them thinking that they could just touch and speak to a cop as if they were ordinary people like you and me.
That’s exactly why I now make it a personal habit to ask whether someone is a cop before any other interaction occurs. I also put my dog in a back bedroom whenever the doorbell rings, just in case it’s a cop. In fact, I’ve even taken to calling ahead when I take the dog to the vet: “Hi, this is Dave. I was planning to bring Tasha in for shots. Are there any puppy murderin’ cops there?” I mean, it seems logical that they would tend to congregate around places where they might be able to get some free target practice.
Gotta be careful, though. If you’re too polite and respectful, they might think you’re being sarcastic and tase the crap outa you, not to mention scheduling your family for no-knock drug raids.
Lex Praetorianus is not the same as Lex Cives.
You should know that by now.
“Curious about the security cameras in the store”
Based on the one’s I can see, I estimate that there are close to two hundred cameras inside and outside my neighborhood Wal*Mart. As it’s also a fairly new store, I’m also guessing that they
re digital, which means quick access to fairly high quality video.
Which is completely useless when the government makes a considered decision to to completely ignore the misdemeanor.
Wendy McElroy correctly noted the other day that “the most dangerous individual that you — as a peaceful person — are likely to encounter is a police officer. The police are the greatest single threat to your life and safety. [Note: I use the words "peaceful person" rather than "non-criminal" because there are currently so many laws on so many levels that the average person probably breaks 2 or 3 every day, often without knowing it.]”
I’m from Chattanooga and I can tell you that the local news media have done a miserable job in covering this story. There has been a slant in favor of the cop, with local TV stations repeatedly playing clips of the officer’s attorney saying that the Wal-Mart greeter “made an egregious mistake.” If you pay close attention, you can gather from the stories that the greeter is an older gentleman, but they are pretty consistent in their refusal to note that he 71 years old.
http://www.rightklik.net/
Man you guys are on the ball today. Nothing to say here.
#13 Jerri thanks for the link. Definitely worth a look.
Why yes!
“Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces . . . ” Hudson v Michigan
I said there is increasing professionalism among the police. I just neglected to mention that it the professionalism of a mafia enforcer.
#25) So, can we call you “Fat” Tony Scalia now?
Or how about Tony “The Professional” Scalia?
The police can do no wrong. The president can do no wrong. In fact, authority of any sort can do no wrong.
And if you say otherwise, you just hate freedom.
“What the fuck does “in the presence of an officer” have to do with whether or not a crime was committed?”
It’s like this:
If an off duty officer witnesses a FELONY, he is instantly on duty and compelled to act.
Since it was a misdemeanor, he does not have to act.
Of course, an ETHICAL cop would have acted. Identifying himself as an officer and calling in on duty officers while holding a fellow officer to the highest standards of conduct.
Ha ha ha! LOL! I crack myself up.
Basically, the asswipes are saying “We don’t technically have to arrest our douchebag cop or charge him with a crime, so we won’t. And rest assured, we’ll do everything we can to keep him out of trouble.”
That many call them “PIGS” makes more and more sense every day. They meet all the criteria to be labeled a gang (by far the largest in our country) but lawmakers granted them immunity from being prosecuted under the RICO statutes. Even politicians are fair game and frightened of them. The only thing that distinguishes their policing style from third world countries is better arms, surveillance equipment, more draconian, invasive databases, to enter into, and pluck information from. and, the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. Unfortunately our rights are being whittled away a chunk at a time by the very people sworn to protect them.. Right in front of the whole country 4 Supremes, who I assume are not retarded, voted the second amendment does not mean citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion, that makes them traitors. (Along with every Judge who rubber stamps warrants and DA who doesn’t charge law enforcement with perjury, even when they’re “caught red handed” lying under oath) . Kind of fun reading and griping about it here but hopefully none of you think this will change anything.. The people who could change it don’t care. They like the idea of more power and control. We in Amerika are entering a new age like it or not.
In his letter to the paper, the judge says he has seen the surveillance video of the incident, and that it shows that no crime was committed. If there is nothing to hide, then the video should be available for all to see. Has anyone else seen the video?
This is interesting.
Det. Freeman was presumably in plain clothes and off-duty, so he was not acting in an official capacity.
He acted with clear malintent, according to the eyewitnesses and complainant.
However, he did not commit the alleged battery for personal gain, or so it is reasonable to assume.
I guess that was enough to let him off the hook during the peer review portion of our story.
I thought this was going to be more informative, but unsurprisingly the State defended one of its own.
I figured it out.
Det. Freeman went to the Pedro Martinez Academy of Justice:
Don Zimmer vs Pedro Martinez. 2003 ALCS Game 3. Boston Red Sox vs New York Yankees
http://playersbehavingbadly.com/Fights/Redsox_Yankees_2003.html
“#26 | MikeL | January 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
#25) So, can we call you “Fat” Tony Scalia now?”
I’m partial to Tony “The Tiger” Scalia.
That’s Mr. Tiger to you.
“Cops! They’rrrrrre GRRRRRRRREAT!!!”
Very unusual for any news station in San Diego (perhaps the most conservative county in California) to cover police abuse.. Even though its watered down, and doesn’t come close to the tip of the iceberg, BRAVO to ABC for even talking about it. The lawyer in the interview pretty much puts his finger on it.
http://www.10news.com/video/18149585/index.html
Most police departments will not hire anybody who has used drugs. Since most people under a certain age have used drugs, how about getting rid of this requirement. Instead, they should screen out psychopaths.
Do you want a police department or not?
Sorry guys, I actually have to side with the cop on this one. The greeter was in violation of corporate policy — he can not physically detain anyone leaving the store, and laying hands could have left him liable for battery and false imprisonment. The alarm means nothing, it cannot be considered PC, and even then only Loss Prevention or a manager can detain.
Even so, they’d better be right or they’re in a world of hurt.
“Sorry guys, I actually have to side with the cop on this one. The greeter was in violation of corporate policy — he can not physically detain anyone leaving the store, and laying hands could have left him liable for battery and false imprisonment. The alarm means nothing, it cannot be considered PC, and even then only Loss Prevention or a manager can detain.
Even so, they’d better be right or they’re in a world of hurt.”
Now now Frank stop talking sense.
I mean really, just because any of these irrational cop haters would shit bricks and fight back if ANYONE (but especially a cop) put their hands on them doesn’t mean the cop has any right to defend his person. Didn’t you know, REAL libertarians only believe in their own Liberty and right to personal space, no one elses (espcially not some fascist cop!).
/sarcasm
But for real, i guess you good folks missed the part where the greeter touched the cop 1st huh?
Frank-
You saw the part where the greeter was 71, right? You saw the part where the guy was knocked through the plate glass, right? You saw the part mentioning the detective has a history of abusing his power with poor behavior toward citizens, right? You saw that he was in plain clothes, right?
You’re STILL siding with the cop?
You were one of the cops that was there, weren’t you?
We all know that the police have a tough job and it’s frustrating to have to deal with thugs, murderers, rapist and politicians and after having to bodily apprehend some of this scum and still stay cool headed would tax even God himself.
However, there is no excuse for that police officer shoving a “Wal-mart greeter and then throwing another man who came to help through a plate glass window.
I believe most law enforcement personnel are honest, but there has been and probably will be rotten apples in any police department who steal from the very stores they protect.
As an example: During the devastation of Katrina in New Orleans, an officer, female, was caught comeing out of a store stealing a TV set.
When this happens the officer found guilty should be terminated from the force, given a criminal record with time in jail.
If you can’t trust law officials to obey the law, then you have a society of anarchy and unfortunately that may be where this country is headed. May God help us!
To Frank - Here’s some kleenex…there’s some cop excrement on your nose….
Darrell from now on anyone that says anything even remotely similar to “most law enforcement personnel are honest” gets an automatic down-vote from me.
For the moment “some, or few law enforcement personnel are honest” is still allowed.
Mike might want to share your kleenex Frank…I think he has more on his nose…might of actually got some on his lips too….
Frank,
You make an excellent point that WalMart greeters don’t have the right to detain you. When some genius at our local WalMart decides to set up the receipt checkpoint, I always politely decline and walk away (though I will usually eventually stop if their alarm goes off, even though I agree with you that it would be hard to make a case that there was a probable cause for a search with the number of false alarms they generate).
That said, I don’t generally shoot them, punch them in the face, mace them, taser them, or even scream at them. The problem here is one of anger management and disproportionate response. If indeed the cop didn’t have the self-control to prudently handle a confrontation with an elderly guy in a blue smock, I’m concerned about his ability to do police work in general.
“We all know that the police have a tough job.”
This canard is sooooo old. We all have tough jobs.
“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.’ ”
While I’m a civil defense attorney by trade (products liability, to be specific) I once represented our receptionist’s significant other pro bono on a misdemeanor assault charge. Granted this is Chicago and not Tennessee, but nobody gave two shits that the alleged assault was “not committed in the presence of an officer.” I’d love to review that judge’s docket and see how many other misdemeanor assault charges were dismissed for this reason. My guess? Zero.
Frank,
“laying hands could have left him liable for battery and false imprisonment.”
(Hums the losing tune from the price is right).
Aww, sorry Frank, that actually DOESN’T leave someone liable for battery and false imprisonment. That’s not the way the, uh, oh what’s it called? Oh right - the LAW works.
Wow, come to think of it your post was way off on all fronts. Can you explain how you equated touching with “detaining?” Can you explain where you derived that the standard relevant in this situation is Probable Cause (here’s a hint: that’s the same standard required to make an arrest. Here’s another hint: you’re wrong on that one too).
I suppose the only thing your argument makes clear and is correct upon, is that you agree that what the officer did was clearly a battery (you also apparently think it wad false imprisonment, but you are wrong there) in terms of civil liability. Standing over an old man in a menacing fashion is also an assault in terms of civil liability, but you knew that, Matlock!
Final question: Can you explain how ticky-tack civil liability (which I will now grant you for the sake of argument though you are still 100% incorrect on this issue) can justify a response of actual violence?
So many questions, and there you are, unlilkely (read: incapable) to respond.
I hope the heck I never run in to that cop! Sounds like a loose cannon. I avoid contact with the police, at all costs! They might call it being judged by the public, for us to see the video. But what choice dose the public have when the judge seemed to be so biased! There is no way and old man ends up on the floor and another thrown through a glass door without the use of excessive force! We all know any other person would have been arrested and charged!
These stories are not good community PR! That is for sure!
For people that may be confused and thinking “yeah, the Wal-Mart employee did ‘touch’ the cop first” here is the general law:
Merchants/shopkeepers and their agents are not liable for false arrest or assault if the detaining/touching is done in a manner to prevent loss of merchandise, no more force than is necessary is used, and the person is not detained any longer than necessary to determine whether a theft occurred.
Meaning: any store employee can touch/detain any customer they think may be stealing. They don’t even have to be right. Under the law, there is no liability - criminal or civil.
Mike H-
‘…just because any of these irrational cop haters would shit bricks and fight back if ANYONE (but especially a cop) put their hands on them doesn’t mean the cop has any right to defend his person.’
I’m not irrational! I’m just against govt thugs assaulting citizens, driving our taxes up, and shooting our dogs. When they treat citizens with respect and leave the dogs alone, I actually almost like some of them.
Mike H
If that cop was seriously afraid he was being attacked by a 71 year-old man, he has not business being a cop. Laws are not a substitute for common sense.
Reminds me of a line from George Carlin.
If you need sensitivity training to know not to shove a toilet plunger up someone’s ass against their will then maybe your just too fucked up to be a cop in the first place.
(Paraphrase)
Under a social system where there is government/rulers, there are the *enforcers* of those laws/rules/edicts/decrees/etc. The enforcers, as well as the legislators/executives/judges, are then first class citizens and the rest — 2nd class.
Making known the identity of government enforcers - their name and, if taken, a photograph - is the only way that most people will come to know who they are - possibly even discover that one or more are people they actually know. With this information others who disagree with the actions of these agents, or simply that they are government enforcers at all, can socially preference against them.
Having large numbers of people refuse to voluntarily interact with them, is highly likely to result in many of these government enforcers questioning the worth of retaining the jobs they have chosen - ones in which they initiate physical harm on others, whether on their own calling or when “following orders”. (If the harmer is not a “law enforcement officer”, then s/he could be more easily dealt with by other “2nd class” citizens.) In addition, I can’t imagine that very many of the legislators/executives/judges would go out into the country and enforce any of the laws/regulations/decrees they have legislated/signed/decreed. These depend on people who are willing to do the enforcing - the enforcers are the key.
Negative social preferencing is a powerful tool (as is positive for beneficial actions), but requires the identity of the person - government enforcers in this case - being known, not a difficult task in this Internet age.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Radley, you better hope the police never get the excuse to arrest you.
They’ll Taze you until your brain boils.
Then, toss you in a cell to make friends with the “Booty Bandit”.
Uhm… I hate to do this and almost never do, but here’s a comment lodged in memory of Oscar Grant, shot to death by a Bay Area Rapid Transit cop on New Year’s Day.
Go Google that name. I just tipped to this story yesterday.
Is it that I don’t know how to search this place, or has nobody here heard of this thing yet?
It’s fucking horrifying.
They are just hauling-off and killing us, now.
Billy (#56), here’s one link to Agitator coverage and discussion on the BART shooting (Oscar Grant):
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/01/08/morning-links-130/
I believe there was a previous mention in a response which prompted another entry as well.
And yes, it is horrifying. Also sad that the anger that residents felt was improperly directed–the cops in that town should be terrified of the citizens, but instead the citizens terrorized each other.
Perhaps a civil lawsuit is in order here. There must be some way for an assault and battery to be recompensed and these two battered gentlemen need recompense big time.
Thanks Billy. I had not heard about that incident. Absolutely disgusting.
I wonder if the young woman will now face charges for illegally video-taping police during a murder.
Chris in AL,
That’s really funny until you realize that that woman is almost certain to be harrassed by officers. Radley might it be interesting to follow up with that young woman to see what, if any, experiences or run-ins she has had with the police since she bravely put her face on tv and the internet in defiance of police misconduct?
Hello Kitty! It’s been a long time since I visited your site. Voluntaryists are very welcome here!
Hi Nick
Unfortunately I wasn’t trying to be funny. People have been arrested for video taping police before. The article I found said the police ran around confiscating several people’s phones and cameras and she only got away because the train finally took off before they could snatch hers.
I suspect she will be intimidated and harrassed by the cops, just like the woman whose home security system filmed the cop shooting her dog while no one was home. The only thing that might protect her is that she got it out to the news. It will be interesting to see if there is any future hassle for this woman.
#8 Mike Leatherwood:
“Really makes you long for the day of Opie, Andy, and the lone bullet in Barney’s pocket.”
Sorry Mike, but Andy of Mayberry was just fiction. In real life, a southern sheriff of the 1950s would probably have worked hand in glove with the KKK, or would have looked the other way when they terrorized anyone who wasn’t a good WASP. That’s why private groups like the Deacons for Defense rose up to defend blacks and civil rights workers.
Look, American law enforcement has been shaky since day one. I acknowledge that as a former Criminal Justic major, and a potential police recruit, even though it is painful. As a society, we need to understand how organized police agencies came into existence, where they have gone wrong, and how policing can be done in the future. I would urge Agitator readers to read “The Idea of Police” by the late U of Delaware Prof. Carl Klockars for a brief introduction to the evolution of British and American policing. I was introduced to Klockars’ ideas in college, and finally got around to reading this book recently. It is a reasonably frank and unsentimental book that shows how the current system is an improvement over some old systems (ie. the Tything system, The Watch and Ward, “Thief Takers,” etc.), but still has obvious, troubling flaws.
Look at the bright side - the detective didn’t pull out his gun and start shooting. None of the civilians involved were charged with “assaulting a police officer” “resisting arrest” or similar standard police BS.
Scalia can suck my dick. And the bitch better swallow.
I take it you don’t shop at Walmart?
They demand your receipt, dig through your possessions, block you from leaving, grab your cart, etc.
But they don’t have any legal standing to force the issue, I’ve certainly be assaulted by Walmart receipt checkers.
And my experience (and the people I’ve worked with in store security) don’t consider the exit alarms going off to be actionable evidence of anything.
I’m not fond of the behaviors of the police, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t run into someone being just as much of a power mad jerk as they are.
I recommend loudly announcing that they have no right to search your possessions, the local Walmart thinks my wife is a lawyer just because she defends her rights.
So, how far can Walmart go? Do we really think letting the TSA do this is a good thing, or letting every store in the country get in the habit of doing this?