The Chattanooga Police Department has decided that an officer who assaults two people, including pushing one through a plate glass window, will not be criminally charge. Det. Kenneth Freeman is truly a free man after, on Christmas Eve, shoving 71-year-old Wal-Mart greeter Bill Walker to the ground. Why? Because he was asking for a receipt check. Freeman then reportedly shoved Gholom Ghassedi through a glass door when he tried to assist Walker. The police routinely charge people with battery and resisting arrest if they touch the sleeve of an officer. Even hugging an officer or passing gas near an officer has led to a charge of assault. Yet, the Chattanooga Police Department can’t imagine what it would charge Freeman with after assaulting an elderly man and shoving a good samaritan through a glass door.
Collegedale Judge Kevin Wilson reviewed the complaint filed by Walker and decided that there was no room for an assault charge.
Walker said an alarm went off when Det. Freeman and another city police officer, Edwin McPherson, were leaving the store. He tried to stop Freeman and pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor. He said the officer then stood over him in a threatening manner as he lay on the floor.
A customer, Gholom Ghassedi, then told Freeman, “You can’t push down an old man” and began struggling with him only to be shoved through a glass door. He was bleeding from his neck when officers arrived.
Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman because the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer — not counting the officer doing the beating of course. He further insisted that, since Gholom Ghassedi, did not seek medical attention, it did not meet that criteria. Finally, he explained “there were no other crimes committed along with the possible simple assault.”
If that seems a bit ridiculous, it is. There is a host of possible charges here in the abuse of an elderly person and assault on not one but two individuals. The police department had to struggle to find a way not to charge Freeman, insisting that they were “unable to determine at the scene that there was any intent to commit an assault.” Well, whatever his intent, he succeeded in knocking an elderly man to the ground and throwing another through a door. Was that all involuntary muscular reflex?
By the way, Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007. What is clear is that the problem is not just Det. Freeman, but the Chattanooga Police Department itself.
For the full story, click here.
“He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Door checkers are never to grab people leaving the store, especially police officers.
Door checkers are instructed to verbally ask any person leaving the store to check their bags, if they are unwilling they are to notify store management immediately.
Mr. Turely, reaching out to grab a person is a form of assault also. In actuality this door checker assaulted the officer first. The officer had every right to defend himself as you or I would.
Get your head on straight. I bet you believe you never deserve the traffic tickets you get either.
“Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman because the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer — not counting the officer doing the beating of course.”
*****************
I showed my 15 year old son this posting. We had the same reaction. This is a curiously stupid statement given that Det. Freeman was accompanied by Edwin McPherson, another city officer. As to USA’s statement that Freeman was merely defending himself from the always dangerous 71 year-old Walmart greeter,I say he should fired for, inter alia and as the kids say, for being that “soft.” I also like my son’s colorful description of the cowardice shown by this rough and tough peace officer: “candy-ass.”
Candy ass. rofl. I have to go with the boy on that one.
Rule number 1: NEVER GRAB a POLICE OFFICER; their training is to instantly react to being grabbed, their life may depend on a fast reaction.
The police officer had every right to react to being grabbed.
USA,
Your alias would imply somewhat who was a good US citizen and a patriot. your comment, however, shows an ignorance of our legal system and of our jurisprudence. Contrary to your belief Police Officers are subject to the same laws as we citizens. Attitudes like yours seem to imply that they are above the law and us common citizens. There is nothing in the story that suggests that the door checker did anything but ask the policeman for his receipt. There is also nothing to state that Mr. Ghassedi did anything but ask the officer to desist from abusing the check out man. I have worked with Police Officers all my life and the professional ones were always courteous people, who were well aware of their responsibilities and duties. Like in any group of people I have met officers who were bullies and seemed to believe that they were above the law.
Door checkers have the right and duty to ask for receipts. Det. Freeman obviously thought he was above this, or is it possible that he had no receipt? If he is a Detective than he probably wasn’t in uniform, so how would an innocent bystander know he was a P.O.? Also since he was at a Wal-Mart, one could presume he was off-duty. If there was some burly man, throwing a 71 year old to the floor for doing his job, would you stand by and say nothing?
The message sent by the Chattanooga Police Department is a bad one. It shows a disrespect for law and a severe lack of internal discipline. Worse than that it actually makes a police officer’s job more dangerous because it sends a signal to people that Officers can’t be trusted to treat them fairly and that they can expect physical abuse at their hands. This would lead more unstable individuals from being calmed down in stressful situations.
By the way regarding your implications regard Prof. Turley and traffic offenses, I can’t speak for him, but I haven’t received a traffic ticket in more than forty years, have no criminal record and have never been arrested. However, my work put me in close contact with the Police for many years. Most of those I met I liked and respected and they felt mutually. Real professional P.O.’s I think would be embarrassed by this Officer’s and this Departments conduct.
Mr. Spindal, The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.” Turley changed this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do (change a word here and there, guess they learned it from him).
A police officer being grabbed has every right to repel that person and consider them a threat. THAT sir is their training reacting. GET OFF THE COPS CASE or go become a police officer yourself and find out what it is like to have to consider that every provocation, altercation, or confrontation could put the officer in danger of his life.
GROW UP SIR. Once again you demonstrate you will bend the situation to fit your preconceived ideas. THE OFFICER WAS GRABBED. THAT sir is a crime.
The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley changed this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do (change a word here and there, guess they learned it from him).
Just a reminder of how some people play with words to fit their complaint. Grabbing or grabbing at an officer will get you in hot water, I guess Turley decided he needed to overlook that aspect.
and of course THE REST OF THE STORY:
According to the reports, Officer Freeman and another off-duty Chattanooga Police officer were walking out of the store, when the alarm sounded.
The greeter reportedly told Freeman to stop and grabbed him on the arm.
Wal-Mart has not responded to our requests wanting to know whether it is customary, or part of a greeter’s duties to grab someone.
The report goes on to state that Freeman was confident the alarm was sounding for a different customer, and not him, so he turned around and told the greeter “don’t be putting your hands on me.” Then, according to the report Freeman pushed the greeter with his left palm.
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/officer_974544___article.html/freeman_charged.html
HMMM. The officer is black, the greeter is white. Is there something racial to this here now? Is a police officer who is trained to react to being grabbed somehow MORE WRONG for doing it because he is black?
I’m guessing we are getting a rash of trolls to cover over the entry on Bush and war crimes. In case that is so, here’s some info on this topic.
“Terry Gross’ interview is with Mr. Sands who has participated in war crimes tribunals. It’s the first time I’ve heard that level of specificity both about the crimes and proceedures for accountability, both political and legal.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358
USA:
So often the law of the jurisdiction serves to help apologists for unrestrained governmental authority like you understand the foolishness of your position.
You confidently said: “Door checkers are never to grab people leaving the store, especially police officers.
However like most states, Tennessee law (T.C.A. § 40-7-116)permits just such an act for any suspect, their employment notwithstanding:
A merchant can detain a shoplifting a suspect for a reasonable time using reasonable force.
(a) A merchant, a merchant’s employee, or agent or a peace officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is attempting to commit the offense of theft, as defined in § 39-14-103, may detain that person on or off the premises of the mercantile establishment if the detention is done for any or all of the following purposes:
(1) To question the person, investigate the surrounding circumstances, obtain a statement, or any combination thereof;
(2) To request or verify identification, or both;
(3) To inform a peace officer of the detention of that person, or surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer, or both;
(4) To inform a peace officer, the parent or parents, guardian or other private person interested in the welfare of a minor of the detention and to surrender the minor to the custody of that person; or
(5) To institute criminal proceedings against the person.
The properly functioning alarm bell going off is probable cause to most thinking people, thus justifying the acts of that big, bad 71 year old.
“GET OFF THE COPS CASE or go become a police officer yourself and find out what it is like to have to consider that every provocation, altercation, or confrontation could put the officer in danger of his life.”
Your attempt at lecturing me implies that I’m not aware of the problems faced by Police, even though I took pains to advise you that I’ve worked closely with them. As for being in danger of one’s life, in my profession, some of it spent in Child Welfare, I walked every famously dangerous area of NYC for more than 20 years, alone/weaponless, day and night. I walked in on basement “shooting galleries” with no weapon other than a briefcase. I’ve confronted physically huge psychotics who escaped from mental institutions, by myself and by myself returned them to the institution where they belonged. I’ve been in the middle of domestic violence situations and resolved them, also by myself.
I’ve also been called in by local precincts to lecture them on dealing with mentally ill people. I’m well aware of the work police do.
You sir, who lecture about twisting facts, have ignored the issue of whether the officer was in uniform and therefore identifiable as a police officer. Also you acknowledge he was off duty, which again makes a difference. Perhaps you and i believe in a different America. In your the simple fact of being a Police Officer gives a person special rights over ordinary citizens. In my America all citizens, including police are subject to the same laws and standards of conduct.
“The report goes on to state that Freeman was confident the alarm was sounding for a different customer, and not him, so he turned around and told the greeter “don’t be putting your hands on me.”
This still begs the question of whether the Officer was in uniform and also represents strange reasoning. Since I don’t shoplift, every time I’m asked for my receipt upon leaving a store should I be telling the employee to lay off. Was the Officer ignoring the employee. Finally, and you know I’m correct in this: If this same incident happened with a regular citizen and the police were called you know very well that the customer would be arrested for assault and the police would ignore the store employee’s touching the customer’s shoulder. So truthfully do you really believe that having a badge gives someone rights beyond a normal citizen? If you do then I suggest you need to put more study into US Law.
By the way I’m sure that New Channel 9’s field reporter can be always assumed to be accurate in reporting. There would be no reluctance to get at the truth even though that reporter, face well know, would have to live and drive in that community. Your final point about the Officer being black was a rather half-hearted attempt to muddy the waters. I am well aware of the differentiation that is unfairly done to Afro-American shoppers,
however, you know very well that is not what this case is about.
It is amazing how much nonsens can be spewed to protect an out of control police officer who, at least, over reacted to a normal business issue at any large box department store. As Mespo and Mike S have informed us, the “greeter” had the legal right to apprehend a possible thief. I am sure that a professional police officer could have removed the 71 year oold greeter’s hand and explained the situation without throwing the greeter to the ground and throwing another person through a glass door. It is preposterous to think that this PO was actually defending himself. He was out of control and assaulted both parties and should have been charged accordingly. I would think that a civil suit against the PO and the Departtment and the city would be appopriate and successful.
rafflaw and Mike,
I am totally with you. A properly trained PO is not supposed to act with a hair trigger, exactly the opposite. Professionals diffuse situations. I was thinking a civil suit should be in order as well. The police dept. isn’t showing any intelligence here. This officer has a history. Instead of taking the bull by the horns, they are defending what is not defensible. They are opening themselves up to monetary damages and worse allowing a dangerous, out of control person to stay in their dept.
I’m often amazed by how ill-informed most of these trolls are. Not only about the subject matters at hand, which may partly explain the deluge of off-topic cut-and-paste stuff we’ve endured, but also their lack of appreciation for the level of intelligent life here. Most contributors are well educated, well read, well spoken (written) professionals whose areas of expertise and/or intellectual interests demands analytical and independent thinking skills.
Sometimes I feel a touch of embarrasment for these trolls as they come here so woefully ill-equipped mentally to actually engage in the discourse they intentionally provoke. For instance, today, mesmerize stayed a bit too long and wrote himself into a corner and got slammed by Mike Spindell and rafflaw. Poor, pitful mesmerize.
I will let the lawyers here debate on Detective Freeman’s legal culpability and/or legal jeopardy after his lawyer’s admission that what his client did was wrong.
Lawyer Stuart Brown: “Brown says his client knows what he did was wrong but calls what the greeter did “an egregious mistake.”
I think Wal-Mart should consider filing a criminal lawsuit against the detective to settle the legal questions—in this jurisdiction—at least. Wal-Mart must back their employees if they acted in good faith and within the laws on the books that give employees legal rights for reasonably detaining suspected shoplifters. Mespo referenced material suggesting codification of such laws in the state of TN; however, that is my nonprofessional understanding of what I read and given that; lawyers and judges very often interpret the law in terms vastly contrary to the laypersons’ interpretations.
As with any allegation, we do not have all the facts. That is why a criminal lawsuit might serve a greater societal good to set legal precedent for others to follow in similar cases such as occurred on the premises of this Wal-Mart.
Note: I had 1.5 pages of comments, although I decided to break those into separate posts, if I decide to post more on this topic.
I agree criminal charges should be brought and a civil suit filed!
Wal-mart as a rule has surveillance cameras on the entrance/exit areas; I would like to know what happened to the video tape!
Jill and rcampbell,
You guys are correct and rc I have to admit that I originally felt the same way as you about the trolls, but after dealing with them for awhile I realized that they are here to disrupt and nothing else. I have stated before that I think they are just a few people using different names that may be paid for their work. It is a type of human spam!
Mespo,
Most likely similar to your son, I taught my son to speak his mind in a firm—although cordial—manner. My son is 6’ 3” plus and he is a gentleman in his mid-twenties. However, my best guess is that, especially since his old man was in law enforcement, he would think the cop at Wal-Mart was quite the sissy/candy-A for assaulting a defenseless 71-year-old man who was no more capable of physical challenges greater than acting as a Wall-Mart greeter.
mespo, the law you quoted said DETAIN, it does not say you can grab them does it. SHeese. Come on you are such a rank amateur. Tell me you are not a lawyer, PLEASE.
and the rest of the story is:
Those that have seen the video tape say it exonerates the COP. You canNOT detain people by putting your hands on them and holding them back. You want to get pulled in for assault, go ahead and try. The law allowing you to DETAIN someone does not mention by force DOES IT YOU RANK AMATEURS…Sheese.
MORE IMPORTANTLY TURLEYS CHANGING THE ARTICLE PROVES HE IS A MADDOW/OLBERMANN TYPE CLOWN THAT GOES AROUND MAKING A CHANGE HERE AND THERE TO BENEFIT HIS ARGUMENT:
The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do; change a word here and there TO TOTALLY OBFUSCATE AND CHANGE ANY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, guess they learned it from him.
mesmerize:
I ‘ll let the lawyers on the blog decide who is the lawyer and who is the person that has no idea what the legal term “detain” means in the context of first sentence that refers to “reasonable force.”
mesmerize:
“The law allowing you to DETAIN someone does not mention by force DOES IT YOU RANK AMATEURS…Sheese.”
**************
Send me your state of licensure. Around my office we like to know which state permits the illiterate to obtain law licenses. It helps on referral decisions. Wait, let me guess: Alaska? West Virginia (sorry to my ‘eers friend)? Mississippi?
FFLeo:
I think your apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree. Good for you!
mesmerize,
Even if the cop had a right to shove an old man to the ground, he was still, as Former Federal LEO puts it so well, a “sissy/candy-A” for having done it.
TURLEYS CHANGING THE ARTICLE PROVES HE IS A MADDOW/OLBERMANN TYPE CLOWN THAT GOES AROUND MAKING A CHANGE HERE AND THERE TO BENEFIT HIS ARGUMENT:
The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do; change a word here and there TO TOTALLY OBFUSCATE AND CHANGE ANY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, guess they learned it from him.
mesmerize:
“The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, ”
Dear Grammatical Whiz,
The “try to stop” phrase is the root predicate while “reached to” is a modifier.
Thus the only place where use of the “tried to stop” phrase would alter any meaning conveyed by the original article lay solely within your imagination.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
mesmerize,
You are an abjectly illiterate, cowardly fool.
Please review the Mayor Dixon thread ‘Pay to PlayStation’ for more evidence of your illiteracy.
I won’t enter the fray on whether the detective should have been charged with simple assault. I believe he severely overreacted, but I also agree that the greeter had no legal right to grab the detective’s arm.
No, what disturbs me the most is mespo727272’s posting of the state shoplifting law and the extremely irresponsible conclusion that the Wal-Mart greeter had a right to detain Detective Freeman.
Merchants can detain a shopper only with PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he or she has stolen something. PC is a stringent legal standard that demands some measure of evidence, not unfounded suspicion. The activation of a store security alarm doesn’t even approach probable cause. Electronic article surveillance is a shoplifting deterrent, not a crook catcher — the alarms sound hundreds of times a day, and only a sliver of those may actually signal shoplifting.
Because the majority of EAS alarms sound for improperly deactivated merchandise, not theft, they do not provide employees with the necessary proof to accuse someone of stealing. Neither do customers have an obligation to stop immediately and stand, sheepishly, while someone rifles through their bags because a robotic voice tells them to return to the store.
A receipt check is basically a consent search. Once you buy something, it becomes your personal property, and the store cannot inspect it without your permission. Employees can ask to check receipts all day long, and while many customers will participate, every shopper has the right to simply say “No, thanks” and leave the store uninspected.
For more on bag checks, see: http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm
From Blade Runner:
“If your not cop, you’re little people.”
indieregister:
“No, what disturbs me the most is mespo727272’s posting of the state shoplifting law and the extremely irresponsible conclusion that the Wal-Mart greeter had a right to detain Detective Freeman.
Merchants can detain a shopper only with PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he or she has stolen something. PC is a stringent legal standard that demands some measure of evidence, not unfounded suspicion. The activation of a store security alarm doesn’t even approach probable cause”
******************
Lay your disturbance aside along with your rudimentary knowledge of the law of probable cause. It has been the opinion of the US District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania that the activation of an EAS alarm along with the suspect’s attempt to avoid security does establish probable cause to detain. Pennsylvania is just one of several jurisdictions to so hold. If you need a primer see the case of PAMELA SPORNY v.BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE OF PHILADELPHIA, INC., et al. : 97-5550 (EDPa) where just such a restrictive and foolish approach as yours,on these same facts, was rejected. Kentucky also permits detention upon the sounding of the EAS and the refusal to cooperate with store employees Messer v. Robinson, NO. 2007-CA-000977-MR (2008). My view may be “unreasonable” to your way of thinking, but it is unquestionably the law and considered policy of at least two jurisdictions who have considered it. May we have your contrary authority?
Well said Mespo and Bob Frog. It is really heartening to see the level of knowledge that is on display on Prof. Turley’s site.
The Sporny case did not establish that an EAS alarm equals probable cause. The court ruled that Burlington Coat Factory had probable cause to detain Sporny given the complete facts of the case. I quote from the judge’s ruling:
“As noted above, it is undisputed that, when plaintiff
was leaving the store, she had in her possession a pocketbook which had not been paid for, and which was the property of the retail establishment. Under the terms of the statute set forth above, there was probable cause for her detention and for the police referral and further investigation, as a matter of law.”
Sounds like it was the shoplifting — not the alarm — that justified her detention. Yes, the fact that she activated the alarm and tried to leave the store quickly was noted, in a paragraph the judge devoted to “alternative arguments.”
An alternative argument not even applied to the case at hand hardly constitutes a statewide precedent, mespo. Good try, though.
You are correct on the Messer case, but that opinion is certainly a head-scratcher. The court finds that the EAS alarm was sufficient probable cause to detain the customer, but the customer was never detained! The opinion states that the store manager asked her to return to the store, show her receipt and provide her bag for inspection, which she did voluntarily. That’s not detention, it’s a consent search! The court’s reasoning is specious and its conclusion speculative, but it remains legally binding.
I’m truly sorry I neglected to mention that at least four states by my count — Florida, Georgia, Mississippoi and West Virginia — have shoplifting laws that empower merchants to detain and search shoppers who activate the EAS sensors. While I certainly disagree with the law in these cases, I do respect it, and it would be reckless to ignore or minimize the impact of these statutes in their respective states.
Courts have grappled to define probable cause, and it’s at best a fluid definition that adapts to the totality of the circumstances. Could an EAS activation factor into a PC finding when it’s a stipulated fact that the customer did possess unbought merchandise? Sure. Could the store alarm, in itself, empower employees to accuse you of theft and search your belongings?
Not unless you’re unfortunate enough to live in one of those states that’s erroneously equated a security sensor with a magic theft detector.
Intricate and interesting legal arguments not withstanding the off duty (and presumably un-uniformed) was brutal and bespeaks a candy ass as FFLeo put it. That his superiors cover up for his behavior besmirches the Chattanooga Police Department. The toughest people I’ve ever met were the slowest to use their strength. The cowards and bullies used intimidation to hide their own fear.
Mespo said:
“I showed my 15 year old son this posting…. I also like my son’s colorful description of the cowardice shown by this rough and tough peace officer: “candy-ass.”
_____________________________________________________
I, like others here, just agreed with those comments. The full credit for the original classic ‘C-A’ comment goes to mespo’s 15-year-old son. Kids say the darndest things! (and often the most appropriate and spot-on things!)
indieregister:
It is an exercise in doltishness to construe what I said as support for the proposition that an activated EAS, in and of itself, supports s finding of probable cause. The activated alarm coupled with the thug Officer’s refusal to stop and cooperate do provide a sufficient basis as both cases found.
FFLeo,
You’re right about the C-A quote, could my mind be going from age faster than I though it was?
Mesmerize, your bias and reading comprehension fecklessness are glaring. The Tennessee code on the matter clearly says:
“A merchant can detain a shoplifting a suspect for a reasonable time using reasonable force.”
Therefore, the 70-year-old man reaching to hold the suspect by the arm was NOT unreasonable. Every arrest or detention by a police officer is accomplished by the use of physical contact.
And yes, the officer assaulting the old man makes him a jerk, and a lawbreaker.
It would be good to know if the detective was in plain clothes. I suspect that he was, since detectives in police departments where I have lived, including Tennessee, are always in plain clothes.
I may be wrong but in my opinion both the 70-year-old greeter and the good Samaritan did not know that the two men who walked through the door setting off the electronic beeper were police.
Jamesel Smith:
Correct on the law as you are, you have made the basic error of assuming that these trolls can read and comprehend simple English. After 8 years of Bush et idiots, we should probably know better.
What would have happened if the person who assaulted these two Walmart employees had not been a cop? Obviously they would be arrested. So, the fact that this guy was a cop changes things? Why? How?
Aside from the legal issues, this guy is a bully. He should certainly not be a cop.
Republicans have spent 30 years building a police state. Now cops are running amok. It’s going to take a long time to undo the damage the GOP hath wrought.
There are several posters here who I hope get the privilege of being beaten or tasered (or having a loved one beaten or tasered) for looking at a cop the wrong way.
There is NO EXCUSE for what that officer did. None.
A badge is not a license to be a belligerent asshole.
You jackbooters defending him should find a nice police state to live in. For the time being, this isn’t one.
One thing an officer of the law is supposed to be able to do is SHOW GOOD JUDGEMENT. Recognizing the difference between a threatening situation and a normal one is a vital skill for a person who is licensed to use deadly force; it’s part of regular training. This officer clearly showed an inability to distinguish between the two types of situations–which is a serious hazard not only to the public, but to the officer himself. He can create dangerous situations where none existed before.
The Chattanooga Police Department, in giving no accountability for this extremely poor behavior on the part of its officer, has demonstrated nothing less than corruption and really, really stupid policy. Recall the recent shooting in Oakland–this is simply an example of the same kind of thing. Should the man have been shot because he reached toward the officer, would that have been justified? What if the greeter had had a heart attack or some other physical trauma as a result of the assault? Should the officer have been exonerated for manslaughter if the glass his other victim went through had sliced the carotid artery? The three (officer and victims) of them were lucky that this didn’t turn out worse.
As Tom Baker said above, there is absolutely no excuse for what the officer did, and there is absolutely none for the Chattanooga Police Department’s response to the situation. Both the department and the officer have been irresponsible in the extreme.
Hey Mike Spindell,
My aged mind is likely not more that 1/2 a step behind yours at best; however, it is more likely 2 steps ahead of yours in ‘mind going’ agedness.
USA, Mesmerize-
I can’t tell you how many times the door alarm has gone off as I leave Target, Walmart, Sam’s, you-name-it. When the door checker asks to see my reciept, I always cheerfully show it to them. I am helping them do their jobs, and that’s my job as a customer. Anyone who resists or refuses is acting like a criminal, don’t you agree?
I do not shop much, although I have had the alarm system trigger on me several times. Once, and the most embarrassing, the alarm occurred while I was in uniform. Of course, just like getplaning and other decent, honest shoppers, I always submit to whatever the merchant wants, which most times is, “oh, you are okay, go ahead”.
The brutal thugs of the police departments need to be put back in their cages.
I take it all back. I’m an idiot, and I was drunk. I apologize.
“Rule number 1: NEVER GRAB a POLICE OFFICER; their training is to instantly react to being grabbed, their life may depend on a fast reaction.
The police officer had every right to react to being grabbed.”
They are also trained to handle any situation by de-escalation. Trying to resolve it peacefully. So in your opinion if a cop feels a tug on his sleeve he has every right to kick the hell out of that person. WOW, I feel sorry for the first lost kid that was trained to find a police and gets this guy, he is going to get F#&ked up. I just hope someone is around to get video of it so you got something to spank the monkey to…
According to the report the greeter told police that he had a tag in his pocket and when he turned to tell Freeman to stop he was the one who set off the alarm. The greeter stated that he forgot that the tag was in his pocket.
It’s worth considering the relevant state law on citizen’s arrest in this case. Given the circumstances, Mr. Walker was probably within his rights and the law to attempt to physically restrain a shoplifting suspect (regardless of store policy). The police officer’s reaction is in no way mitigated by any attempt on the part of Mr. Walker to effect such an arrest. And the police officer’s reaction can rightly be viewed in precisely the same light were the roles reversed. Had the police officer attempted to detain Mr. Walker as a shoplifting suspect and been assaulted in this manner, Mr. Walker would be awaiting trial.
Physically touching or blocking a person to get their attention has not been viewed by any court of jurisdiction as a form of assault. (Plenty of big city mayors have tried it with pan handlers.) Otherwise, police officers would face assault prosecutions on a daily basis. But reacting to such touching with a violent assault has almost always been regarded as a crime. Normally the only circumstance to mitigate such a determination would be evidence to support a claim by Detective Freeman that his personal safety was endangered by the touching. But that determination should not be made by the responding police officers investigating the incident. They take statements and collect evidence. Following an arrest, a prosecutor would determine from the statements, evidence, and any follow up interviews if Detective Freeman had reasonable cause to fear for his personal safety when a seventy one year old store employee touched him.
Whatever you do, don’t try to sell any Girl Scout cookies to Detective Freeman this year.
Cops are filthy power hungry pigs. No more no less. Expect little from their kind.
Cops are simply mad that they never paid attention in school and are stuck in their back-water hick-town.
john,
Your statement is unfounded nonsense.
john:
“Cops are filthy power hungry pigs. No more no less. Expect little from their kind.”
*************
I’ll hold you to that mantra the next time you hear the tinkling of breaking glass in your downstairs at night and the rustling of footsteps up toward your bedroom door. Maybe someone who was paid attention to in school will rush to your house armed to defend you. Put them on your speed dial. If I was a cop in your town, you’d need to.
ROTCODDAM:
“Physically touching or blocking a person to get their attention has not been viewed by any court of jurisdiction as a form of assault.”
*********
I suppose you mean “battery” here rather than “assault,” but where did you get the idea that intentionally “touching or blocking a person to get their attention” isn’t battery. Battery is an offensive or injurious touching without legal justification to do so. Surgeons may be sued for battery if they simply exceed the scope of the patient’s consent, so your statement that intentionally touching someone without permission or legal justification isn’t battery just doesn’t hold water. In the case of the greeter, he has an express statutory right as an agent of the shop owner to detain a suspected shoptlifter if he does so with probable cause and in a reasonable manner. Otherwise it is battery in the context of this case. For example if the greeter simply picked someone out of a crowd and grabbed them to shake then down as a shoplifter, that is battery.
Also your reversing the situation isn’t much help either since if the officer is doing the arrest it’s no longer a “citizen’s arrest.” Instead, the officer has express statutory policing authority to detain and arrest for certain offenses committed in his presence or pursuant to a warrant of arrest. If the suspect resists, he is resisting a prima facie lawful act by the officer which is itself a crime in most jurisdictions.
About the only thing I am getting out of your comment worthwhile is to avoid selling cookies to the detective. I’ll take that sound advice.
“In the case of the greeter, he has an express statutory right as an agent of the shop owner to detain a suspected shoptlifter if he does so with probable cause and in a reasonable manner. Otherwise it is battery in the context of this case.”
Otherwise?
Neat trick.
But “the context of this case” includes the fact that, mistakenly or not, the theft security alarm sounded as detective Freeman was attempting to exit the store. A lot less than that has passed for probable cause in false arrest complaints against police officers. Detective Walker’s associate, Sgt. McPherson, responded by stopping and displaying his receipt for inspection. And there is nothing in the police reports or any of the statements to indicate that Mr. Walker’s attempts to detain Detective Freeman were anything other than reasonable.
It’s also quite neat how you managed to totally ignore the relevant issue: was detective Freeman reasonable to fear for his personal safety under the circumstances, thus justifying his reaction?
You’ll find few who would agree that he is, outside the ranks of Tennessee law enforcement.
Let the local prosecutor charge Mr. Walker with battery if he thinks it is justified (RME). But the fact remains that Detective Freeman should have been arrested at the scene. And unless the prosecutor determined from the evidence that he was reasonable to fear for his safety, Detective Freeman should have been charged and arraigned.
It is nearly impossible for most police officers to recognize criminality in their own ranks. The mindset simply forbids it.
Consider the BART police who stood by, perhaps in shock like all the other witnesses, and did absolutely nothing in response to witnessing a fellow uniformed officer murder a detained, unarmed citizen by shooting him at point blank range as the citizen lay prone on the ground with his hands pinned behind his back by another officer. I’m sure they were surprised. But what is important to understand from the incident is that none of the dozen or so other police present at the time recognized what Officer Mehserle did as being a crime. He wears the same uniform as them. Attends the same roll call.
The unique cultural mindset of comradeship among law enforcement officers in most agencies simply precludes any consideration, no matter how glaring the evidence, of another officer’s criminality. It’s considered wrong to even think that way.
ROTCODDAM:
“A lot less than that has passed for probable cause in false arrest complaints against police officers.”
*********
This is the most elliptical nonsense I have read on this blog. If the arrest lacked probable cause it was unlawful. If a court determined that the circumstances amounted to probable cause it therefore existed. If you mean that police departments routinely dismiss complaints with pre-textual arguments of probable cause, thank you for stating the obvious. That’s why we have courts.
The point that many have made throughout this thread is that ample probable cause existed for the greeter to detain the officer due to the triggered EAS coupled with the detective’s belligerent failure to cooperate. That is the holding in the two cases I cited above. I am aware of no case which holds the triggered EAS, in and of itself, warrants a detainer without more.
Stick to the pastry advice. You’ll have more credibility.
From what I understand the greeter did have any reason to suspect the officer of shoplifting. So without and probable cause I fail to see how Wal-Marts policy to check reciepts for the sake of seeing reciepts is any different than unlawful detaining.
I guess the way I see it is that what is the different between stopping people jsut to see their reciepts for the sake of seeing them when there is an appearance of having done nothing wrong and for example a police officer stopping you while driving by him on the street just to see if you have a drivers license and to just check you out for no other reason other than he felt like it.
I do believe that Freeman did overreact, but the bottom line is that If I haven’t done anything wrong and someone grabs my arm and walks around in front of me to stop me I would try to keep the person from doing that also.
Mespo:
As I previously noted, your summary of the Sporny case was incorrect. I’ll give you half credit, as the second case was ruled as you explained it.
You said the greeter had PC to detain Freeman because of the “triggered EAS coupled with the detective’s belligerent failure to cooperate.”
First of all, where’s this belligerent failure to cooperate? None of the media accounts indicate that the greeter asked Freeman to stop or shouted to get his attention — only that he immediately got grabby. Surely you’re not suggesting that every exiting customer is supposed to instantly freeze on the spot whenever a security alarm sounds.
Maybe Freeman would have gladly and voluntarily showed his receipt. Maybe he would have politely told the greeter that he chose not to be searched. We don’t know that the greeter ever asked. He grabbed.
Secondly, something doesn’t seem to add up in your “Alarm + failure to cooperate = probable cause” equation. What would constitute cooperation? Letting an employee rifle through your bags and review your receipt?
A receipt check is a consent search. It’s our property, they ask for permission to inspect it because (1) private citizens can’t forcibly search, and (2) they don’t have PC to detain. Declining a consent search shouldn’t be considered evidence that someone’s guilty. Explain that one to me…please!
The greeter had actually asked to see Freeman’s reciept PRIOR to the alarm activating which the greeter admitted later that HE WAS THE ONE that accidentally set off the alarm not the officer
So, all the folks defending the officer’s assault:
Cops are supposed to have and use judgement, and they’re trained, so we are continually told, to use it in life-threatening situations. Is it rational, is it smart,–is it good judgement to beat down an old man who reaches out and grabs your arm?
Or would anyone with an ounce of brain perhaps simply ask what the individual wanted?
Of course, as some people have stated, the excitement of being touched may have simply triggered the officer’s catlike ninja self-defence reflexes, which also explains why he threw a third party through a plate glass door. Sure … his catlike ninja reflexes hadn’t been deactivated yet … that musta been it. Musta been.
The thought that this detective is running around armed makes me glad I don’t live anywhere near him. And you could add some of the authoritarians in the comment thread above to that.
People have been charged with assault for standing on a sidewalk in front of cops, farting near cops, and in other, equally ludicrous circumstances. But a cop beats down on an old man and tosses a stranger through a window and that’s just peachy?
Something is wrong with your mind if you consider this somehow justified.
indieregister”
“Declining a consent search shouldn’t be considered evidence that someone’s guilty. Explain that one to me…please!”
*************
Apparently you have trouble synthesizing separate events into a coherent whole. Failure to agree to a consent search without more doesn’t amount to probable cause, and failing to heed an EAS buzzer doesn’t either. We’re talking about the combination of the two which at least two courts says amounts to probable cause. Much like hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water yet neither is wet. I hope this illustrates the concept which obviously eludes your grasp.
BTW throwing a 71 year old through a plate glass door usually qualifies as “belligerent failure to cooperate” in the minds of most reasonable people, I suspect.
You’re talking in circles, mespo, and you’re making me dizzy.
The point we differ on is whether the greeter had PC to detain Freeman on suspicion of shoplifting. His grabbing was the attempted detainment. It would be nonsensical to say that his shoving the greeter helped establish PC for the grab that PRECEDED the shove, now wouldn’t it?
My question to you was and still remains: Did the greeter have probable cause to try to detain Freeman? By your formula of EAS activation plus failure to cooperate, it seems that he didn’t, since there’s no indication that Freeman was uncooperative before the greeter tried to detain him.
Lest anyone accuse me of defending the cop, I’ll say again that his retaliatory shove was a disproportionate use of force response, and Freeman most likely should have been charged with simple assault or its equivalent. While he is held to a higher standard because he’s a police officer, however, two wrongs do not make a right.
The greeter, old and frail and pitiable as many have painted him, was still spry enough to try to manhandle a shopper. I doubt he was meekly trying to get the man’s attention. A tap on the shoulder translates to “Excuse me, sir,” but grabbing someone’s arm is a restraint. You don’t get all handsy with a customer you haven’t even spoken to.
The first wrong belongs to the greeter, and the greater wrong belongs to the detective. Agreed?
Let’s leave one fact out of the scenario: what if this guy wasn’t a police officer – but was instead a criminal defense lawyer? Would it still be OK for the lawyer to shove the greeter, or push the good samaritan through a plate glass window?
If not, why not? Shall we enforce the laws differently depending upon whether we approve (or disapprove) of the alleged perpetrator? Can we do this and still claim to be a society that values the “rule of law” rather than the rule of man?
In the article at the beginning of all this, we find this sentence, which I have cut and pasted from the article:
“He tried to stop Freeman and pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Then in the first response by USA, we find this quote:
“He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
This sentence is not to be found in the article as Turley posted it; we have to go to the Chattanoogan article to find it.
But, USA morphs “reached” to “grabbed”. For most of the remaining responses the act performed by Walker is called “grabbed”, although this word wasn’t used in any of the articles I’ve seen.
But, now in the immediately previous response by indieregister, “grabbed” becomes “manhandled”.
How these descriptions escalate!
I think there are some cop commentors who are taking offense with the rest of us defending the Walmart greeter. Let me ask you this, If that was your grandfather, or father being shoved to the ground. Would your stance be different? My dad wasn’t the greatest human being, but I’d be damned if I EVER let someone get away with shoving him into or onto any floor. I have seen very littel restraint in alot of cops, and there are alot of crooked cops. TO me, this is just another cop out of control and needs anger management. REALLY shoving to the ground? I think the so called police officer was definitely in the wrong, and should have had the consequences for his actions.
indieregister:
“…you’re making me dizzy.”
****************
Though I’d like to, I don’t think I can take credit for that.
Pedantic:
Channel 9 has used the word “grabbed” in at least two stories posted online about the incident.
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/officer_974544___article.html/freeman_charged.html
The Chattanoogan says the greeter “reached to stop” Freeman. That’s pretty vague, and I’ll leave it to others to parse its meaning, but it certainly sounds like some attempt at restraint.
Yes, I used the word manhandled, and I won’t shrink from it. Store employees who use their hands instead of their mouths when they approach customers are at least thoughtless and rude and at the most intentionally trying to intimidate the shopper.
Despite Mespo’s putdown, (s)he hasn’t disputed the fact that the greeter didn’t have probable cause to detain Freeman. Again, no one’s completely innocent here. The greeter was wrong and the detective was dead wrong.
indieregister:
“Despite Mespo’s putdown, (s)he hasn’t disputed the fact that the greeter didn’t have probable cause to detain Freeman.”
***********
Your utter misunderstanding of this situation in spite of the black letter law gently shoved under your nose coupled with your chosen profession of independent journalism, force me to repeat a famous line by former IU coach Bobby Knight. When confronted by an equally clueless reporter asking the same exasperating questions already covered in the answer he just gave, Knight responded “All of us learn to write in the second grade. Most of us go on to greater things.” Knight is assuredly no role model for anything, but his observation of some in the press is spot on.
Mespo,
Your little anecdotes and condescending swipes fail to advance your position. If you’re such a learned scholar, why have you failed repeatedly to answer my challenges to your highly suspect legal theories and instead responded with ad hominem bile?
You don’t prove that you’re correct. You don’t debate. You just repeat yourself.
When I pointed out the shortcomings with your summary of the Sporny case, you remained silent. When I picked apart your assertion that the greeter had probable cause to try to detain the detective, you said nothing.
You and I may respectuflly disagree on some subjects, but I’m a fair person who will admit when he’s wrong. So, prove your point. Enlighten me. Tell me what gave the greeter probable cause to grab Freeman in an attempt to detain him.
indieregister:
“Channel 9 has used the word “grabbed” in at least two stories posted online about the incident.”
—————————————
The exact sentence from that article:
“The greeter reportedly told Freeman to stop and grabbed him on the arm.”
We aren’t told who “reported” the grabbing, but since the title of the article is “Chattanooga Officer Tells His Side on Assault Complaint”, we can reasonably that this is the detective’s side of the story.
You should shrink from using the word “manhandled”, because as you know, it implies much more violent behavior than merely “grabbed”. It is an attempt to strengthen your argument by emotional means, not by effective argumentation.
But, now, a hypothetical.
You seem to have indicated in an earlier post that you don’t think the sounding of the alarm plus the refusal to cooperate should constitute probable cause to detain (I quote):
“I’m truly sorry I neglected to mention that at least four states by my count — Florida, Georgia, Mississippoi and West Virginia — have shoplifting laws that empower merchants to detain and search shoppers who activate the EAS sensors. While I certainly disagree with the law in these cases…”
Suppose a customer, not otherwise suspected of shoplifting, trips the EAS alarm upon leaving the store. Suppose an employee asks the customer to stop and submit to an inspection of his/her bags, but the customer ignores the request and simply continues walking out of the store.
What would you have the store do in such cases? Just let the customer go on his way, possibly with stolen merchandise (and, possibly not, of course)? Take his picture? Call the police, who won’t get there until the customer is long gone?
OK, manhandled may be a bit strong for a grab on the arm. But there’s definitely intent to hold the shopper, and that’s the crux of the issue. Should store employees physically restrain someone simply because an alarm goes off?
Some EAS systems have a digital counter that records every activation. Look at the next one you pass. Unless it’s been very recently reset, you’re likely to see a high double- or low-triple-digit number. If even half of these represented actual shoplifters, police would have to set up a substation in the parking lot. An active sensor triggers the alarm, and while many false positives are due to cashier error, some high-dollar electronics contain EAS sensors inside the packaging that can’t be disabled during checkout. Magnetic strips on credit cards or key cards have been known to trigger the alarms in some cases.
It’s perhaps a minor phenomenon of social conditioning that we pay any heed to a system that cries wolf so often. Most people ignore car alarms and regard them as more irritant than crime deterrent. Why, then, should rational, free thinking adults click their heels together in full halt and open their bags for inspection at the beckoning of a robotic voice? There’s something altogether Pavlovian about this response. You know you didn’t steal, you know the doorway inspection for contraband will be fruitless, so why endure it?
What should store employees do? Well, they’re certainly free to approach customers and ask to see their receipts. As long as it’s an interrogative and not an imperative — that is, the search is completely voluntary — they have every right to take that step. But to demand proof of purchase, to hold someone’s cart, to grab them or otherwise restrain them amounts to an irresponsible and indefensible strong-arm witch hunt. In those four states that allow detention for an EAS activation, just because an employee can stop you doesn’t mean he should. The law extends to merchants the right to hold customers, but there is no corollary law requiring those customers to play along. They can keep walking, and if they’re physically restrained, they can refuse to be searched and demand the police be called.
Responsible loss prevention agents don’t detain someone on suspicion alone — the corresponding number of “bad stops,” or false arrests, would be staggering. To touch a customer and physically prevent him from leaving, you should have nothing less than actual knowledge of shoplifting. That’s the accepted industry practice. That’s why the store has surveillance cameras — and someone deep in the bowels of the building watching real-time on a monitor.
What should the store do when someone sets off the alarm and waves off the exit search? If LP didn’t see him steal, absolutely nothing! They can follow me to the car and write down my license plate number if they want…as I’m not a thief, I have nothing to worry about. Call the police, you suggest? Call and tell them what? “We think someone maybe stole, but we don’t know. He set off an alarm that goes off dozens of times a day.”?
The Chattanooga Police force must have no standards of conduct for an employee?
This same detective has assaulted someone while on duty
outside a court room and now a elderly Walmart greeter
maybe when Freeman actually hurts someone the city of Chattanooga will be justly sued as well as the administration…..
Mr.Freeman you woudld no longer represent the law of Chattanooga if I made the decision…. You are an embrassment Period.
To the cop-lover who suggested that we would all cherish having a cop around if we heard glass-breaking in the middle of the night and some stranger was about to enter, etc. etc. (I’m paraphrasing his entry.) Uh, moron, you cops are NEVER there in time. And you don’t have a clue what to do when you do show up. I can take care of myself just fine if someone tries to break in. I’m well-armed, as are many people in this country. We the People solve way more crimes than the mentally ill cops ever will.
One thing im just not getting.If the cop really thought he was being assaulted, why didnt he just arrest the old man?.Not one post talks about this.Even after he beat the crap out of both men,why didnt he arrest them?.He would still be a moron, but at least he would have some sort of defense.
some officers tend to use the badge as a…i can do anything i want and get away with it.just because the man brushed his shoulder doesn’mean he was assaulting the officer,that’s a crock of crap!!!he should be fired.the decision by the police department not to prosecute is lame.where is justice to protect the meak little people,especially one who was trying to do his job.
oh an another thing…get rid of that idiot!!
@USA… come on buddy do you really think that if you, or i, or any other regular citizen for that matter, had thrown an elderly man to the ground and another man through a glass door just because they touched you would NOT be charged with assault? get real. what world do you live in? they would throw an ordinary citizen in jail, no questions asked. this is just another sad example of the scalia’s new ‘professionalism’ and the growing divide between the laws that police and citizens are bound to. it is also sad that there are people such as yourself, who support the police being governed by a different set of laws than citizens. that said, you must be a pig or related to one.
Cops are above the law in some places in the united states and in TN all cops are above the law they follow their own set of rules. Everyone should be in fear of police officers