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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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’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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Candy ass. rofl. I have to go with the boy on that one.
“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.”
“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.