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

[RavenSky]

The relevant law has already been posted.

yeah... I posted it

And the fact that it happened on college property doesn't change the facts.

yes it does, per the law itself

The merchant was attempting to recover stolen property

factually wrong. The ALLEGEDLY "stolen" merchandise was on the floor of the shop where it fell when Gibson attacked Aladin

So long as the pursuit didn't take them into someplace the employee wasn't allowed to go it doesn't matter where it ended up.

Factually wrong per the law

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are talking about temporary detention until police arrive, here is the Ohio law:

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters:

(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.

Note the bolded. Assaulting the person is not a "reasonable manner". Chasing the person out of the store and onto the college campus is not "its immediate vicinity". Multiple eye witnesses have reported that Gibson's son assaulted the student and then chased after him onto college campus property only to assault him again. This is not what "detain" means.

Note the story from the employee--he attempted to take a picture and was assaulted for doing so. Note where the initiation of force is from!

And just because he got away doesn't mean you can't give chase.

According to eye witness reports, the student was standing in line at the cashier when he was tackled by Gibson's son. These eye witnesses also claim that the falling bottles on wine came from shelves as the two young men wrestled with each other, and not from the student's shirt (as Gibson alleges). One eye witness said s/he called the police because of Gibson's assault on the student.

And the police don't believe those "witnesses."

No one disputes that the son chased the student out of the store and back to the college campus. At that point, Gibson's son was far removed from any claim of "detaining" the student for an alleged shoplifting, and fully into "assault" territory.

No. Still attempting to detain.

I said earlier to Loren that the student had the right to defend himself against Gibson's assault, but apparently it wasn't even the student who hit back. It was OTHER students who witnessed Gibson's attack on the student and stepped in to (they say) pull Gibson off.

Actually, it's the other way around. Gibson has the right of self defense, the student does not. I recall reading of a case where someone gave chase to a thief, caught up, faced a potentially lethal attack from said thief (attacking him with the stolen property!) and killed him. It was ruled legitimate self defense because the chaser was within his rights, the thief was not.

So, I believe that we have sufficiently established that there is no "citizen's arrest" allowed under Ohio law? But if you still maintain that chasing someone out of a store and across the street onto someone else's private property to tackle them and assault them is "legally detaining" them under any sort of "shopkeeper privilege" under Ohio (or New York) law, please provide the evidence for me to consider.

Thank you.

I get it, black = innocent, white = guilty.

 

[sharon45]

It's not likely any of them would qualify for a public defender. Oberlin is a small private liberal arts school with tuition over $50K/year. Not including room and board. Even with grants and student loans, most students and most families would be pressed to come up with lawyer fees. Then there is a time factor. Most students these days seem to be working and going to school at the same time.

Not so many lawyers are eager to defend pro bono against minor charges.



Doesn't make him a 'leftist' and yes, it is calling him names, even if you feel it is apropos.

It is quite widely reported that there is a marked increase in openly racist behavior since Trump's election. I live pretty far north, but since the election, I've suddenly seen quite a few vehicles with Stars and Bars proudly displayed.

I don't think Trump caused this. I think his election has made it feel OK for a lot of closet racists and bigots to come out from under the rocks where they've been nursing their grudges once he started running for election. He's a symptom more than a cause.

Given that Trump seemed unaware until recently that Puerto Rico was part of the United States, Gonzalez had legitimate concerns that he might suddenly be 'deported.' Given Trump's response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico vs his response to the hurricane in FL (where he has expensive property)--it's awfully hard to see how you could not recognize legitimate concerns. I know you read the news, even if it is just trolling for evidence to support your theories that radical feminazis and liberals are trying to steal your women.



Are they lying? Or are they simply taking a stand, perhaps having been the recipient of such behavior from townspeople?



A joke--a point made using a common observation of Trump's behavior by almost anyone who doesn't have his or her ass quite far up Trump's ample ass.

Apparently only 6 out of 40 shoplifters arrested at Gibson's have been black.

o
Point? Animosity does not equal pressing charges or attempting to have someone arrested. Simply following certain people around a store works pretty well to make the point and to discourage their patronage.

Although thanks for pointing out that blacks do not demonstrate a greater degree of criminality than other persons.

The protesters and college at that time had not provided evidence of racism. The 3 concerned pleaded guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespassing and that racism was not an issue.


Whether there is racism no value unless proven.

How is Trump relevant here?

Because he is a Republican politician.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would be expensive to go to court---time consuming and detracting from time needed for classes, etc. And expensive in a monetary sense. No matter how their tuition is paid, very few students have extra thousands of dollars, nor do their parents.

Other than the time taken and transportation it costs nothing to go to court as a witness.

 

[RavenSky]

Note the story from the employee--he attempted to take a picture and was assaulted for doing so. Note where the initiation of force is from!.

So you take the word of this "mouthpiece" uncritically, but not the words of eye-witnesses unrelated to the three students involved.

Interesting

 

[RavenSky]

And just because he got away doesn't mean you can't give chase.

Not what the law says!

And the police don't believe those "witnesses."

And you always lick the boots of the police. I don't find your opinion on these types of cases credible either

No one disputes that the son chased the student out of the store and back to the college campus. At that point, Gibson's son was far removed from any claim of "detaining" the student for an alleged shoplifting, and fully into "assault" territory.

No. Still attempting to detain.

No. Gibson was still attempting to assault.

I get it, black = innocent, white = guilty.

Why are you obsessed with race? I didn't even mention it anywhere in that post.

 

[Toni]

It would be expensive to go to court---time consuming and detracting from time needed for classes, etc. And expensive in a monetary sense. No matter how their tuition is paid, very few students have extra thousands of dollars, nor do their parents.

Other than the time taken and transportation it costs nothing to go to court as a witness.

But it does to be charged with a criminal offense.

And for a lot of students, time taken and transportation --plus uncertainty of when you will be called to appear--can be very burdensome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note the story from the employee--he attempted to take a picture and was assaulted for doing so. Note where the initiation of force is from!.

So you take the word of this "mouthpiece" uncritically, but not the words of eye-witnesses unrelated to the three students involved.

Interesting

1) The students' story doesn't pass the smell test. Shopkeepers don't just assault shoplifters out of the blue.

2) The police obviously believe the shopkeeper. I'm listening to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Not what the law says!

You've had the law explained to you by a professional in the field, yet you are still sticking your head in the sand about it.

I get it, black = innocent, white = guilty.

Why are you obsessed with race? I didn't even mention it anywhere in that post.

But we know the students are black and the shopkeeper white--and you're bending over backwards to side with the students despite their story neither being reasonable nor believed by the police.

 

[RavenSky]

1) The students' story doesn't pass the smell test. Shopkeepers don't just assault shoplifters out of the blue.

They don't? Never ever?

2) The police obviously believe the shopkeeper. I'm listening to them.

Of course you are. When have you not taken the side of the police, no matter the circumstances.

 

[RavenSky]

Not what the law says!

You've had the law explained to you by a professional in the field, yet you are still sticking your head in the sand about it.

wrong

I get it, black = innocent, white = guilty.

Why are you obsessed with race? I didn't even mention it anywhere in that post.

But we know the students are black and the shopkeeper white--and you're bending over backwards to side with the students despite their story neither being reasonable nor believed by the police.

I will note again, I did not say a word about race. You are not a mind-reader, so don't you even try to pretend you get to push your obsessions onto me, Loren.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that you still have not done so.

In Ohio, a "citizen's arrest"** is only allowed in the commission of a felony. A felony would be a theft in excess of $1,000 (I said $500 earlier) - hence my question to you about the cost of the wine allegedly shoplifted.

** Note: "citizen's arrest" was the word you all used, not me, and thus what I specifically addressed



http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2913.02 (There are some exceptions to this, none of which apply here)

2935.04 When any person may arrest.



https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/7-consequences-shoplifting-ohio/

So... no "citizen's arrest" would be allowable in this case (unless you are making the argument that the wine allegedly stolen was worth more than $1,000)

If you are talking about temporary detention until police arrive, here is the Ohio law:

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters:

(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.

Note the bolded. Assaulting the person is not a "reasonable manner". Chasing the person out of the store and onto the college campus is not "its immediate vicinity". Multiple eye witnesses have reported that Gibson's son assaulted the student and then chased after him onto college campus property only to assault him again. This is not what "detain" means.

(C) An officer, agent, or employee of a library, museum, or archival institution pursuant to division (B) of this section or a merchant or employee or agent of a merchant pursuant to division (A) of this section may detain another person for any of the following purposes:

(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft;

(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;

(3) To obtain a warrant of arrest;

(4) To offer the person, if the person is suspected of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft and notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, an opportunity to complete a pretrial diversion program and to inform the person of the other legal remedies available to the library, museum, archival institution, or merchant.

Still no "citizen's arrest" and still no allowance for physical violence or for chasing the suspect out of the store and onto the college campus.

According to eye witness reports, the student was standing in line at the cashier when he was tackled by Gibson's son. These eye witnesses also claim that the falling bottles on wine came from shelves as the two young men wrestled with each other, and not from the student's shirt (as Gibson alleges). One eye witness said s/he called the police because of Gibson's assault on the student.

Gibson alleges that the student had two bottles of wine under his shirt. Other witnesses dispute that, but let's assume he did. Let's even assume that the unrelated eye witnesses were flat out lying when they claim that Gibson's son tackled the student from behind without a word. Wrestling match ensues while Gibson's son attempts to "detain" the student. If it stopped there, I *might* have said o.k. no problem. But it didn't, and that is why I maintain that Gibson's son assaulted the student.

No one disputes that the son chased the student out of the store and back to the college campus. At that point, Gibson's son was far removed from any claim of "detaining" the student for an alleged shoplifting, and fully into "assault" territory.

I said earlier to Loren that the student had the right to defend himself against Gibson's assault, but apparently it wasn't even the student who hit back. It was OTHER students who witnessed Gibson's attack on the student and stepped in to (they say) pull Gibson off.

So, I believe that we have sufficiently established that there is no "citizen's arrest" allowed under Ohio law? But if you still maintain that chasing someone out of a store and across the street onto someone else's private property to tackle them and assault them is "legally detaining" them under any sort of "shopkeeper privilege" under Ohio (or New York) law, please provide the evidence for me to consider.

Thank you.

LOL. The old "I've been proven wrong so it must be time to level up the absurdity" trick. What would the internets be without it?

Well, your posts would be scarcer.

 

[laughing dog]

Which has nothing to do with their claim of racism or whether Gibson's has a history of racial profiling or whether all the claims in Gibson's lawsuit are true.
If their retraction was not part of a plea deal, it would be completely convincing to me. Since it was part of a plea deal, I do not find it convincing at all.

.
My point is the case itself has nothing to do with whether the owner is racist.
They admitted the charges including aggravated theft hence admitted the charges.

The burden of proof is with the accuser bur Oberlin has not supported its claims.

Why do you continue to inject irrelevant details into the discussion on whether it is possible that this man did racially profile people or that all of his claims may not be true?

The Owner is also suing the University for slander. It's not racist to defend one's property against theft.

Who claimed this did make him a racist?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why do you continue to inject irrelevant details into the discussion on whether it is possible that this man did racially profile people or that all of his claims may not be true?

The Owner is also suing the University for slander. It's not racist to defend one's property against theft.

Who claimed this did make him a racist?

Flyers, mob rousing and demo's claimed he is racist. However they provided no proof.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you continue to inject irrelevant details into the discussion on whether it is possible that this man did racially profile people or that all of his claims may not be true?

The Owner is also suing the University for slander. It's not racist to defend one's property against theft.

Who claimed this did make him a racist?

Flyers, mob rousing and demo's claimed he is racist. However they provided no proof.

That is non-responsive to my post.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Flyers, mob rousing and demo's claimed he is racist. However they provided no proof.

That is non-responsive to my post.

There is no proof of racial profiling as this is central to the issue.

 

[laughing dog]

Flyers, mob rousing and demo's claimed he is racist. However they provided no proof.

That is non-responsive to my post.

There is no proof of racial profiling as this is central to the issue.

No it is not. Nor is relevant to anything I wrote.

 

[dismal]

1) The students' story doesn't pass the smell test. Shopkeepers don't just assault shoplifters out of the blue.

They don't? Never ever?

2) The police obviously believe the shopkeeper. I'm listening to them.

Of course you are. When have you not taken the side of the police, no matter the circumstances.

Why do you think Aladin hasn't proclaimed his innocence and taken to the protest lines?

He seems conspicuously absent from the social justice war that has sprung up on his behalf.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is no proof of racial profiling as this is central to the issue.

No it is not. Nor is relevant to anything I wrote.

It is.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no proof of racial profiling as this is central to the issue.

No it is not. Nor is relevant to anything I wrote.

It is.

It is not relevant to the issue on whether the shopkeeper may be a racist nor that not all of his claims are true. It is possible he is a racist even if no evidence is offered.

 

[Derec]

It is not relevant to the issue on whether the shopkeeper may be a racist nor that not all of his claims are true. It is possible he is a racist even if no evidence is offered.

Of course it is possible. But rational people look for evidence before they take speculation seriously.