Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Btw, as I predicted, the amount of damages has been reduced to $25 Million and will likely be reduced further (to nothing, if justice is to actually prevail) on appeal.

Still a lot of money. And why do you hope Gibson's (and the Gibsons as individuals) get nothing? Oberlin definitely wronged them

Clearly they did not.

and they did have their eyes on Gibson's property for parking lot expansion.

Are you trying to argue that Oberlin decided to trump up a protest, falsely accusing Gibson’s of being racist so that, slowly, over time, some years down the line the Gibson family might sell Oberlin their store?

Gibsons deserve compensation.

For preventing a sale of one bottle of wine to an underaged student that ended with that student being assaulted and two other innocent students being dragged through hell (along with the underaged student) because they were defending their friend?

Oberlin deserves to take one on the chin.

Allyn did too and the result was three lives nearly ruined for racial/political reasons.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Btw, as I predicted, the amount of damages has been reduced to $25 Million and will likely be reduced further (to nothing, if justice is to actually prevail) on appeal.

Despite the $44 million verdict, the jury determined that actual economic damages to the Gibsons were only a bit over $4 million. The jury was very generous in its determination of non-economic damages, granting the plaintiffs $7 million for emotional harm. Under Ohio law, emotional damages are capped at $250,000 to $350,000 so it was no surprise that the judge reduced them.

The reduction is not due to a belief that racism was not involved

I didn’t say that was the reason. In fact, I was the one who pointed out it would first be reduced because the Jury did not know they were not allowed to award such high damages.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Charging high and plea bargaining down is the usual way the criminal justice system works.

Is the sky usually blue too?

There are many reasons for why the “system” will charge high and plea bargain down. In this instance, it wasn’t “we always charge high and then just automatically plea bargain down” as you bizarrely imply in your irrelevant observation, so, per usual, you have provided no counter-argument or salient statement.

It doesn't mean anything is wrong with the case.

Your irrelevant generalization? I agree.

In regard to the case, however, I have spelled out precisely what is wrong with it and the reasons why they changed the charges several times on all three students, only to then finally plea bargain down to misdemeanors and forced the students to read identical statements of opinion—which you avoided addressing—thereby conclusively establishing that racism is a matter of opinion.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I missed the beginning of the body cam footage (the youtube page I clicked on evidently was set to start at the moment where the cop goes into Gibson’s). It’s there where there is a mention—by David Gibson, the father—that one of the girls was in the store, but it’s unclear as to whether or not David is describing her outside the store and trying to stop him from following Allyn or that she’s inside the store trying to stop him from approaching Allyn and Aladin at the point where Aladin supposedly throws down the two wine bottles.

Note also that there were at least a half dozen witnesses inside the store (and outside) who all gave testimony to the fact that Aladin wasn’t doing anything wrong. These are the ones that the cop just summarily dismisses.

Note also throughout how the cop keeps telling only David and Allyn—and Brent, who is evidently someone else, and not the Guy behind the Counter—in soothing tones not to worry, we’re going to charge the kid with robbery, not theft and the girls with assault and it’s ok, and you, Brent, your story “I think” corroborates what David told me (even though it very clearly did not; just the opposite in fact).

I’ll do another translation in a bit. It’s a pain in the ass, but I think worth it as it shows yet more changes to the stories that the Gibson’s tell throughout the twenty or so minutes just after the incident. It also clearly shows how the cops are almost entirely indifferent to any of the witnesses and keep reassuring just the Gibson’s that only they are to be believed and everything they are saying is corroborated, when in fact the stories keep changing as I’ve already detailed, but there is more at the beginning as well.

Note also if you watch the body cam tape from the beginning the fact that David Gibson is constantly preoccupied not with his son’s well being or that no one was hurt, etc, but with what the “other” witnesses (most of whom were white, btw, as far as I could tell) were going to say. He voices his concern over and over to the cop, to which the cop keeps replying back in a placating, assuring tone sentiments of don’t worry; we’re not going off of what they say, etc., only he’s doing so BEFORE they get all of the other witnesses’ stories!

At one point, a witness who had insisted on telling her story informs the cop with the body cam that there are six other witnesses who were sitting inside the store, apparently, who all saw what happened and want to give their statements and the cop doesn’t seem to really give a shit and assigns some other cop to go take their statements, and then he goes back over to David, who again voices his concern about how “they” are going to say Allyn did this or Allyn did that, and the cop reassures him again that Aladin is being charged with robbery, not theft and the two girls are being charged with assault.

He hasn’t even heard the statements from the other six witnesses yet! Don’t worry local businessman, we arbitrarily have already decided that only you are telling the truth—the students are prima facie liars and untrustworthy—the kid is going down for a felony that will ruin his life, the two little girls that were just trying to dislodge your 32 year-old son’s grip on their friend are fucked and we aren’t going off of what any of them say, etc. in spite of the fact that your story keeps changing and is NOT corroborated by other employees, but, fuck it, I’m just going to tell that employee that what little account he gave does in fact corroborate it.

Brent is literally saying things like “I didn’t see any blows” and the struggle between Aladin and Allyn inside the store looked mutual and he didn’t see any wine bottles or the like, but he “understands that the kid was supposedly trying to steal something” (iow, he didn’t see any such thing, he’s just repeating what he heard from Allyn) and yet the cop stops him to assure him that, yep, I think what you’re saying corroborates what your bosses just told me (even though it did not).

Etc.

Oh, and at the very beginning is where David mentions—just once and never again—that Aladin tried to bend his fingers back a bit, but it’s also at that point that David describes the entire exchange between Allyn and Aladin and David inside the store as being nothing that intense; nothing that violent. It’s only as the stories get repeated that the violence of it all escalates.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, transcription time. The audio doesn't get turned on until about the 30 second mark. It starts with David Gibson talking about a kid with two bottles, but then confirming with the cop that he's recording:

David: You're recording right?
Cop: Yeah. Which kid?
David: The one that's on the ground
Cop: Okay
David: [referring to the bottles] And he had it under there and then Allyn went to take care of it, but he tried to say, "Just stay here and stop," and then I, I, you know you're
gonna have to ask Allyn exactly on this, I need to pull him over...
Cop: Well I want to talk to him separately. What did you see out here, because Allyn was laying on the ground?
David: Well, out here, Allyn tried to stop the guy and said, "Just wait," and he grabbed his [unintelligible, but I think "stuff" referring to Aladin]
Cop: [yelling at another cop in reference to Aladin I think wailing in the background] Hook him! Mark? Hook him.
David: He grabbed his st, I forgotten that he'd threw the bottles of wine down and yelled for me, and I ran up front as he threw the bottles of wine, after he threw the bottles of wine down, he had them under his coat...

Coat, not shirt. First time it's mentioned. It continues:

David: So Allyn asked the guy to stop, and then the guy, uh, pushed Allyn and was with him and grabbing him, uh, both of them were grabbing each other and the guy kept saying, "Don't touch me," "Don't touch me"...

At that point the cop starts yelling at the others on the sidewalk telling them they're interfering in a police investigation and if they don't stop, they'll be arrested, but it's unclear what they're doing or how they're interfering. Evidently one of the two girls that later gets arrested was part of the focus, because David points her out:

David: Yeah, she was there too. She was claiming that, uh, that nothing was done, but he had, uh, taken bottles of wine and hid them under his coat.

Coat is mentioned twice now by David, but keep in mind that this is the first time he's telling the cop the story. But as we already know from the previous transcriptoin I did from much later in the tape, David didn't see any of that part. He was either in the back room or in the back of the aisle "shopping" and only supposedly saw Aladin throw or drop the bottles (and then it's out from under his shirt, not in his coat).

David continues:

That's where the situation started [hidden bottles under his coat]. Allyn tried to maintain it. And he didn't want to let the guy go.
Cop: [interrupting] Hey, Mark? Talk to Allyn and see what he's got.
David: He didn't want to let the guy go, so he, uh, as the guy tried to push his way out the door, Allyn grabbed him to stop him, ok? Then he came out on the street and then, uh, then the guy, uh, the guy wouldn't stop and, uh, they both ended up going on the ground and held on to each other. Allyn NEVER threw a punch.
Cop: Ok.
David: It was grabbing and then just maintaining it
Cop: [interrupting] Trying to keep control of him?
David: Trying to keep control, he went down on the ground and kinda wrapped him up and just held him

This would be where other witnesses would say Allyn had Aladin in a "chokehold." David continues:

David: [referring to his son again] And not once did he throw a punch. The girls starting punching him, Allyn, over there...
Cop: Which girl? The younger one or the...
David: Uhhh...
Cop: The, the other one? Or they were both yellin?
David: They were both involved.

Note how the cop asks if they were "yellin" not hitting. David just says, "they were both involved." It continues:

Cop: Ok.
David: They were both involved with it. And then came up over here and they were throwing punches at him nonstop over here.

So, very clearly, both the cop and David are talking about the girls being part of those witnesses who were yelling at Allyn to stop beating on Aladin. THEN they "came up over here and they were throwing punches" at Allyn nonstop "over here."

They weren't IN the store, they were evidently outside with many other people witnessing what appeared to them as Allyn attacking Aladin, yelling for Allyn to stop and then when he didn't evidently decided--along with others as David later described--to try and stop Allyn from attacking the kid.

David continues:

David: Uh, but...and, uh, this young lady, she tried to stop me when I ran to try to help. She got in front of me and then she pushed me to the back of the store, this young lady, so that I wouldn't try to go up and help Allyn.

Clear? This is the first time David is telling the story and now suddenly one of the two girls they had both just been talking about--outside yelling and then allegedly beating on Allyn--was now in the store, apparently, pushing David to the back of the store, no less, in order to stop David from helping Allyn who supposedly would then be tussling with Aladin in the middle of the store. it continues:

Cop: The one with the blue jacket?
David: Yes, but she tried to more or less block me from getting through, so she got i my way and, uh...

He never mentions that in the three times he retells the story once back inside the store.

Dave continues:

David: And then, uh, the one guy in the back--when he ran to the back--I thought he may be going to run out the back door, so I went back and I said, "Calm down," to him, and I said, now you gotta just stay here so we can work this out and he grabbed my hands and he just, he turned my hands down just so that he could get away. I couldn't, I couldn't control it.

So, the story here is that one of the girls was evidently in the back of the store close to David. She tried to block him from going up to Allyn and Aladin, who were supposedly between David (in the back of the store) and the front door, but here David is saying that Aladin tried to run out a back door and he "went back" to him and tried to calm him down.

It continues:

Cop: Which guy?
David: The guy that...
Cop: They guy that was making all the noise here?
David: The guy you're arresting.
Cop: Ok.
David: Again, it wasn't that severe. Neither side was that severe until the girls got involved and they started actually punching...
Cop: [interrupting] So both the girls were actually punching Allyn?
David: Both the girls were punching Allyn...
Cop: Did they punch you at any time?
David: No. No, he grabbed, she only blocked me at the one point, and pushed me for just a second and I said, "You have to get out of the way" and I pushed through to come out, because I didn't know where it was going to go.
Cop: Ok.

There's some "oks" and a pause or two and then:

David: So that's the best I can tell you for that.
Cop: Ok, he's going to get charged with robbery, not theft

David makes an audible sigh of relief and then says:

David: You know this whole thing is just getting...there's so much stuff going through our store right now...
Cop: Yeah.
David: With the students, I just cannot believe it. I just, I don't know how to get control of it. Really, I mean it's nonstop.
Cop: Yeah. Yeah.
David: But this young lady says, aw, he didn't do anything, so...
Lady: [off camera] We ALL saw it. We ALL saw it. That's not true.

A female employee comes up to give David the kid's fake ID apparently. David asks the employee if she saw anything, but she was "in pricing" (whatever that means) and then David mentions Brent might have seen some stuff.

The cop moves off and the "Lady" who spoke up says over and over that she wants to make a statement, that she was the one who called 911 and wants to make a formal statement (that for some reason no one has yet taken) and the cop basically just brushes her off to go and speak with another cop ("Mark") who talked to Allyn.

"Mark" says Allyn was saying "pretty much the same thing, that the guy had like three bottles of wine under his jacket" etc. and how Allyn had confronted him at the counter and how Allyn took out his "camera" to take a picture of the guys and the guy hit it into his face and they "kind of got into in the store and he tried to detain him in the store" etc and "the guy threw the bottle of wine to the ground."

Bottle, not "bottles."

And then "they ended up over here."

More later. Real life intrudes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, let's continue. The two cops--one is named "Mark" I believe, the one not filming with the body cam--are reviewing things as they stand--the body cammed cop is clearly primary and telling the other cop that Aladin is going to be charged with robbery and the girls with assault for hitting Allyn and then he asks the other cop at the 5:21 mark:

Cop: Were there girls involved in the theft?
Mark: I don't think so.

They have some back and forth about seeing the girls when they drove up, but not about the theft, so the cop goes over to Allyn and asks:

Cop: Hey, were the girls involved in the theft?
Allyn: Uh, they were walking around and they were looking at stuff ...
Cop: [interrupting] Were they...?
Allyn: ...but they didn't take anything.
Cop: Ok, but...
Allyn: But they were with him, yes.
Cop: They were with him?
Allyn: [murmurs in affirmative] Mm-hmm.
Cop: Ok.
Allyn: But he had two bottles up under his shirt.

First time this is mentioned ("under his shirt," not "in his coat").

Allyn: He had stashed one on the shelf [unintelligible word; translation has it as "forgetting," but I don't think that's what he says] he came back, because he had two others. He went to the side aisles over there and came back and picked the one up off the shelf and he tried to make his way out. I went to take a picture of him. I refused service as he's leaving the store [unintelligible] on the other stuff. And then he shoved my phone in my face and then he started going back to drop the bottles and I went back to the stop and my dad was there. And he starts like shoving and getting belligerent and everything else. I threw my hands up, he goes into the shelf. I mean obviously I don't want my cell phone, my product, destroyed. So he's starts jumping on me...
Cop: [interrupting] So, uh, was there a shouting or a shoving match inside the store?
Allyn: Um, all the hanging items got slammed into.
Cop: Ok, all right.

Another cop comes over to ask about whether someone took a picture of Allyn's hand and then the body cam cop once again assures the owners what's going to happen:

Cop: What's going to happen is, the guy's going to get charged with robbery...
Allyn: [interrupting] He also said he was going to kill me! He said, "I will kill you," so...
Cop: Ok. So, he's gonna get charged...
Allyn: [interrupting, but cop shuts it down]
Cop: Listen, listen! He's gonna get charged with robbery. The two girls are going to get charged with assault. Ok? You good with that?
Allyn: Yes sir.
Cop: All right.

Cop then moves away and approaches the young woman who called 911 (not that it should matter, but a white woman) and she's with a guy (also white) who saw it all too.

Cop: So you're the one that called 911?
Woman: Yeah.
Cop: Ok, so...what happened? What did you see?
Woman: I was standing at the counter, I was standing at the counter and, um they were filling out a GPO for me
Cop: A what?
Woman: It's like a departmental order of payment I was getting food, I'm an RA [resident assistant].
Cop: Okay
Woman: um and I don't know, I don't know his name, the kid was standing at the cash register like he was about to pay. He hadn't picked up his backpack. he wasn't walking towards the door. He was just standing there and [Allyn] comes running out of nowhere and tackles him and shoved him against the cash register, and [Alladin's] like, "Let go of me, let go of me" and, is that "Allyn?" [points to Allyn on ground] He keeps screaming at him. And they're a bunch of people sitting in the store and they're all like, "Stop hitting him." And [Alladin] gets up and he tries to run back to the back of the store just to get away from him and [Allyn] chases after him and shoved him into an aisle
Guy: There's shit falling from...
Woman: There's everything falling all over, so he shoves him into an aisle, [Aladin] falls on the ground and tries to run out. Allyn Gibson runs, throws him on the ground and starts hitting him and people walking by are like, "Stop, stop, you have to stop!" By this point I'm on the phone with 911 and people are trying to get Allyn, who is holding onto [Aladin's] shirt and people were trying to get him to let go by hitting his hand [demonstrates repeated hacking motions]. And then you guys came and arrested them instead of the person who just assaulted this kid for no reason.
Cop: Ok.
Woman: And we all saw it. He saw it [pointing to Guy, who affirms], and they're like three more people inside who saw it and we can all testify that that is what happened.
Cop: Okay well if you guys want [turns to another cop] you have statements? [cop says yes] Okay if you guys want to fill out a statement?
Woman: Yes, please!
Cop: You guys complete that and then turn them in to the police department.

Not to the cops that are right there taking statements. You kids go turn those little statement thingies you want to do into the police department if you want, we don't give a shit.

Things start winding down and bit, so David Gibson, who was evidently right near by and heard everything the woman and guy said to the cop, catches the body cam cop's attention:

David: Wait, uh, Brent was also in this [motions to Brent in introduction]
Cop: Hey
Brent: Hi.
David: If you want to talk to him separately...?
Cop: I do want to talk to him. [in a reassuring tone to David] Um, I'm still going to go through with the charges.
David: Listen Allyn never threw a punch. I don't know what she said on that. I watched Alan through the whole thing. [he turns to Brent] Did you ever see any...?
Brent: I didn't see any punches thrown.
David: So tell me, uh...
Brent: He was aggressive but the kid, I was at the register, when it first started taking place. And I believe [Allyn] saw [Aladin] stealing. You know, I didn't catch him. I was up at the register. And the kid put his hands out to him first--to Allyn. It wasn't anything, you know, to block what he was doing, it was an aggressive move towards Allyn first.
Cop: Okay. All right.
Brent: And he reacted, you know, really, real ecstatic. At first.

The cop cuts him off at that point by yelling for another officer--"Alice"--to take Brent's statement. Brent asks if he should write it down, the cop says yes, but to also tell him the story:

Brent: Like I said, the kid, he was overactive, but I didn't see any--not a single punch thrown or anything. There was a moment where my obstruction was viewed in the back [sic] But I didn't see any punches. It was a lot of...mutual hustling, so to speak. I mean, the kid was kind of overreacting in a way, but, I mean, he was just trying originally to get...did you say he was sailing or something, I didn't get the whole...
Cop: [correcting him from asking for confirmation] Well, this is just between me and you. I don't want this tainted.
Brent: Right. I'm sorry. Ok. But, I believe the he was caught stealing and he reacted quickly to avoid any further conflict with Allyn.
Cop: Ok. All right. Ok. I'm going to need you to fill out a statement.
Brent: Ok.
Cop: Ummm, I think it's the statement um I think it's going to support what he's alleging and um they're going to fill out their statement will submit that also. I think what you're telling me corroborates what they're telling me.

That breaks things up a bit, some back and forth about making sure to get David's statement, etc, and then another woman (presumably the woman who called 911) approaches the cop to tell him that there is another witness who wants to give a statement. Cop says, "sure" like he couldn't give two shits.

The woman is joined by at least two others (off the camera) and they affirm that they were in the store the whole time and saw the whole thing.

The cop is audibly dismissive of these witnesses, asking another cop for a statement form "you cot another one for...someone over there..."

Once again the cop tells the eyewitnesses to fill out their statements and then take them down to the police department and drop them off. When it comes to Allyn, David and Brent, the cops are getting their full stories and taking notes and making sure they fill out their statements, but when it comes to anybody else--at least six eyewitnesses inside and outside of the store while all of this was going on--it's, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And constant assurances to the store owners the whole time--before even hearing any of the eyewitness accounts--that they're not going to listen to any of them; the kid is going down for a felony robbery and the two girls for assault, fuck what everyone else is telling us, we're only believing your stories.

Which don't add up!

After dismissing the eyewitnesses, the cop then moves back to the scene, the other cops gather around and there's a lot about making sure to collect the statements and take pictures of Allyn's alleged injuries and so on.

One of the cops confirms that he has the girl--who he saw and the others saw driving in--"actively with her arm going up and down" describing how she was apparently beating on Allyn.

But recall that the other eyewitnesses were saying the girl was just trying to break Allyn's grip.

From that point on, we go into the store and it syncs back up to my first transcription.

What is striking throughout is the unmistakable bias and constant assurances being shown to the Gibsons as they are giving their statements, while all of the other eyewitnesses are being openly dismissed to the Gibson's before their statements are even taken. The cops have clearly already come to the conclusion to believe the Gibsons and none of the other witnesses--before hearing their statements--and they are telling the Gibsons this openly and each time the cop does this, the story changes, like with Allyn suddenly remembering (after hearing the kid will be charged with felony robbery), "He said he'd kill me!" And then David changing a "call" from his son to a "scream."

But, again, their stories don't all add up, so why are the cops going with conflicting stories--told by employees that are actually not corroborating their boss' stories--and openly telling the Gibsons that they aren't going off of what any of the eyewitnesses say?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, so here is one of the most relevant parts of David Gibson's "testimony" throughout the 22 minutes of the body cam recording:

Gibson: I just asked Allyn how did all of this happen to begin with, because I didn't see that part of it, I was in the back. So he said, he refused him service, because he knew he had the wine on him under his shirt, he refused him service to buy something up front, so the guy went to walk out the store, that's when Allyn stopped him.
Cop: Right.
Gibson: So, I just asked him, because I didn't even know how it started.
Cop: Right.

The problem is, when? When did David Gibson ask his son how it all happened? It clearly had to have been before the cops arrived, but as we see in the footage, Allyn is lying down on the ground still. This all just happened as the cops are all there and Aladin is still on the ground and can be heard in the background, etc. So when did Allyn tell his dad all of that stuff?

And, more importantly, David, after fifteen minutes of having already told "the story" is here admitting that he didn't actually know how any of it started--anything about shoplifting certainly--and the whole time was only telling the cop Allyn's version of events, not his own. But he doesn't start by saying--fifteen minutes ago--that he's just relating Allyn's version of events.

Instead he is intently telling the cop Allyn's version of events but without letting it be known that it's Allyn's version of events. So the whole time the cop is reassuring Allyn and David and Brent that they aren't going to "go off of" anything any of the other eyewitnesses are saying and that Brent's story corroborates what David is saying, David hasn't been relating events he witnessed.

Allyn is the only one in the entire store that is alleging Aladin had also--in addition to trying to buy a bottle with a fake ID--shoplifted two bottles of wine. Everyone else just says that this is what Allyn claimed; not that any of them could verify that Aladin had in fact tried to steal two bottles of wine while at the same time trying to buy one bottle with a fake ID.

David keeps changing his story in regard to the two bottles of wine; first they're in Aladin's coat (he says this twice). Then when they're inside the store, it changes to "under his shirt." First it's they were thrown; then it's they were dropped. Then it goes back to thrown.

Allyn says David is in a back room of the store. David said he was in the back, "shopping" and/or that he was in the back of the aisle. He first claims he was stopped by one of the girls, who tried to physically push him to the back of the store, but he got passed her to run back into the store, not run forward toward Allyn and Aladin. There is no other mention of the girl leaving or doing anything else, yet somehow, she has left and is outside when Aladin inexplicably manages to leave with Allyn then chasing out after him.

Allyn says he shouted for his Dad--who was in a back room--after Aladin had already thrown the two bottles (from under his shirt, not coat) onto the floor, but David says his son "screamed" for him and he rushed forward and that's when he saw Aladin drop/throw the two bottles.

The other employees tell conflicting stories that do not in fact corroborate either Allyn's or David's stories and all of the other eyewitnesses who were right there in the store witnessing everything that was going on swear that Aladin wasn't doing anything more than just standing in line ready to buy a bottle of wine, when suddenly Allyn assaulted him and shoved him etc and the two were pushing each other, which IS corroborated by the other employees and even David when he says at first that it wasn't all that intense; just some back and forth between Aladin and Allyn.

The only time anyone mentions punches being thrown are in regard to the two girls outside, but then only in regard to one in particular and the other eyewitnesses confirm that what she was doing was repeatedly hitting Allyn's arm in an attempt to get him to let go his grip on Aladin.

Iow, it wasn't that they were beating up Allyn; it was that she was trying to get him to let go of his chokehold on Allyn.

Regardless, there is nothing--beyond the confusing and conflicting statement of David's--to suggest in any way that both of the girls were in any way complicit in any crime inside the store, attempted or otherwise.

Which is ALL to point out, first and foremost, why it was never acceptable for the police to randomly decide that the Gibsons and their employees were all telling the truth and corroborated each other, when in fact they did not; and all of the other witnesses were to be summarily dismissed without ever getting their stories first.

Within the span of just twenty minutes, David's story changes at least five times by my count (and in contradictory ways) and the other two employees on the tape offering their stories (Brent and the Guy Behind Counter I thought was Brent, but apparently is not) both tell stories that do not in fact corroborate David's or Allyn's.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, what do you know, I'm not the only one that's noticed the glaring discrepancies/omissions in the official police report. From the editorial board of the Oberlin Review:

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.

Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

They go on to note (among others) a crucial point I made right from the beginning:

The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Indeed.

 

[kahlmyishmael]

Do you think the stipulations about what to say in confessions were about protecting the police officers and/or also trying to squash the protests out of fear they would grow into something?

What other purpose do they serve?

Imagine if a DA came to you at 17--after you shoplifted say $40 worth of wine--and said, "You're looking at a felony robbery charge" (even though you couldn't be, because Ohio law states a felony is only over $1000) "which will ruin your entire life--or, you can plead guilty to a misdemeanor slap on the wrist and go free right now. The only stipulation is that you must swear in a statement that, in your opinion, you believe the owner's of the store have nothing against people named Don2 and that they were only trying to prevent you from becoming an alcoholic."

What do your personal beliefs about what somebody else may be thinking have to do with your plea? And why is the belief tied to some sort good samaritan act on their part--that you couldn't possibly know to be true or not--and not to your alleged felony robbery attempt?

You can go free so long as you swear we only arrested you and threatened a felony conviction for a misdemeanor crime in order to teach you a lesson about manners and to make sure you don't start huffing paint.

Um, ok?

The $107 million dollar verdict against Death Row Records was overturned because the court was presented with a statement by the plaintiff that deception had been employed (plaintiff had no standing to sue since she had previously declared bankruptcy and her remaining financial assets were now in the hands of her creditors via a bankruptcy trustee).

We may have the same set of circumstances with deception being employed in the Gibson's case.

Also, if Gibson did indeed participate in an act of deception, then we may have a "damages to reputation" similar to the Leon Uris verdict fictionalized in the "QB VII" novels



You yourself raised an interesting and possibly dispositive point in the "may not" or "were not" racist allocution by one of the two girls and how that may have extinguished the predicate for the suit... I need a further explanation on that topic sometime later

However,
You are absolutely correct about the deficiencies surrounding the plea.

Observing the way the police completely disregarded the eyewitness testimony of witnesses connected NEITHER TO Gibson's nor


I'll fill in a few details to add some color to the outline you have provided.

The shoplifting is immaterial to the more important issue of whether a criminally excessive force (assault) was employed by Allyn Gibson in the arrest of Jonathan Aladin.

In Ohio, it is a crime to lie to the police

The statements of David Gibson and Dormitory Room Advisor Ana Goelzer are polar opposites ... this IS NOT two individuals observing the same event and seeing things differently in a nuanced fashion... somebody is likely telling a GREAT BIG LIE ... either Ana Goelzer is perhaps telling a lie OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, David Gibson is perhaps telling a lie (David Gibson, I believe, later says on the Police Body Cam footage that he did not directly witness the event at the cash register)

The issue then dissolves to which version of events (Goelzer's or Gibson's) is supported by the existing evidence

What is "probative" (evidence tending to establish what actually occurred) within the existing evidence?

That would be the 911 telephone call to the Oberlin Police made by Ana Goelzer in real time as the altercation is occurring.

It is exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone could be fashioning a lie in real time as she is alleging on the phone that Allyn Gibson initiated the assault and was hitting Aladin.

That statement, in my view, could be nothing less than probative since Goelzer would have to be at least a "sociopath" and more likely a "psychopath" to be able to instantly fashion a lie

That would then mean that Gibson's account was not correct and that Gibson perhaps was engaging in deception.

Here is the link to the page with the 911 telephone call to the police
http://168.62.109.77/news/2017/12/14/Gibson-s-Bakery-shoplifting-Oberlin-College.html

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Holy thread necromancy batman

 

[thebeave]

Update:

Appeals Court Upholds $33 Million Verdict Against Oberlin College for False Racism Accusations

An intermediate Ohio appellate court recently ruled 3-0 that a progressive college must pay $33 million in damages for defaming a local bakery.

The case stemmed from a boycott that the appeals court said went legally wrong. On Nov. 9, 2016 (the day after Donald Trump was elected as president), three Black students at Oberlin College were arrested for attempting to steal bottles of wine from Gibson’s Bakery, an establishment close to campus. Oberlin’s Student Senate immediately declared the incident a case of racial profiling, and without investigating any further, it passed a resolution calling for a boycott of the bakery.

The college’s administration got on board, too, and sent an email to students heavily implying that Gibson’s had discriminated against the students on the basis of race. Then-Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo and others handed out flyers that supported the boycott and accused Gibson’s of having a history of racial profiling. What’s more, Oberlin took steps to support a protest of Gibson’s. Evidence adduced at trial showed that the school provided a break room in a nearby building for protesting students in which they could partake in coffee and pizza. Dean Raimondo also agreed to reimburse a student $75-100 for money spent on gloves given to protesters to combat cold weather.

First Jussie Smollet, now this. Not a good year for faking racism against white people.

On another note, its rather nostalgic reading these old threads. Lots of posters who have been banned or just disappeared into thin air.

 

[Derec]

Update:

Appeals Court Upholds $33 Million Verdict Against Oberlin College for False Racism Accusations

Good. Do they have to pay up now or will they try to drag it out even further? This case is worse than Sandpiper!

On another note, its rather nostalgic reading these old threads. Lots of posters who have been banned or just disappeared into thin air.

No kidding. I wonder where Koyaanisqatsi is. He was very sure Oberlin would prevail on appeal.

It appears that Meredith Raimondo ended up in my neck of the woods as VP for Student Affairs at Oglethorpe University. Any stores in the vicinity of the campus better be warned.

 

[Metaphor]

Update:

Appeals Court Upholds $33 Million Verdict Against Oberlin College for False Racism Accusations

Good. Do they have to pay up now or will they try to drag it out even further? This case is worse than Sandpiper!

On another note, its rather nostalgic reading these old threads. Lots of posters who have been banned or just disappeared into thin air.

No kidding. I wonder where Koyaanisqatsi is. He was very sure Oberlin would prevail on appeal.

It appears that Meredith Raimondo ended up in my neck of the woods as VP for Student Affairs at Oglethorpe University. Any stores in the vicinity of the campus better be warned.

I wonder who does the hiring at Oglethorpe, and thought a race-baiting, trouble-making, $33m liability was a good fit for the college?

 

[thebeave]

No kidding. I wonder where Koyaanisqatsi is. He was very sure Oberlin would prevail on appeal.

Haven't seen him here for a while. Kind of an oddball. Very hot-headed. I never saw anyone go into so much depth and analysis on a particular incident and then always come to the wrong conclusion. Happened with Jussie Smollet, Michael Brown as well as this case.

 

[Trausti]

This is awesome.

Could you imagine the post-judgment interest on the $33M verdict by now? Aw, man. Gonna get the sheriff to seize parts of college and put ‘em up for sale. Oberlin has the dumbest lawyers.

 

[TomC]

I wonder who does the hiring at Oglethorpe, and thought a race-baiting, trouble-making, $33m liability was a good fit for the college?

People who want to put Oglethorpe University on the map?

Depending on the area, she might have great credentials as well as name recognition to boot.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

This is awesome.

Could you imagine the post-judgment interest on the $33M verdict by now? Aw, man. Gonna get the sheriff to seize parts of college and put ‘em up for sale. Oberlin has the dumbest lawyers.

Interest rates have been extremely low over the past couple of years, so the post-judgment interest would not be much compared to the principal.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder who does the hiring at Oglethorpe, and thought a race-baiting, trouble-making, $33m liability was a good fit for the college?

People who want to put Oglethorpe University on the map?

Depending on the area, she might have great credentials as well as name recognition to boot.
Tom

Raimondo is not the kind of 'name recognition' I would want if I were hiring.

 

[TomC]

I wonder who does the hiring at Oglethorpe, and thought a race-baiting, trouble-making, $33m liability was a good fit for the college?

People who want to put Oglethorpe University on the map?

Depending on the area, she might have great credentials as well as name recognition to boot.
Tom

Raimondo is not the kind of 'name recognition' I would want if I were hiring.

You're probably unlikely to attend or donate to Oglethorpe University. Your opinion isn't even important to me, much less the administration of a university I've never heard of.

Believe it or not, your opinions on such matters aren't important to most of the humans on the planet

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder who does the hiring at Oglethorpe, and thought a race-baiting, trouble-making, $33m liability was a good fit for the college?

People who want to put Oglethorpe University on the map?

Depending on the area, she might have great credentials as well as name recognition to boot.
Tom

Raimondo is not the kind of 'name recognition' I would want if I were hiring.

You're probably unlikely to attend or donate to Oglethorpe University. Your opinion isn't even important to me, much less the administration of a university I've never heard of.

Believe it or not, your opinions on such matters aren't important to most of the humans on the planet

Tom

Right, so why do you keep responding to them?

This message board is not fashioned around 'what opinions TomC wants to hear'.