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

[Malintent]

unless the college can assert that the shop owner that pursued the alleged criminals onto college property was criminally trespassing, the location of the incident is irrelevant (more or less - you can't drive, 3 days later, to the persons house in the next town, break in, and kidnap them).

If it cannot be shown that a crime was committed in the store, then the shopkeep assaulted him.
If it can be shown, then the shopkeep lawfully (attempted to) detain him.

The law is clear. It is quite simple.
You have the right to protect yourself, others, your property, and your business to the extent prescribed in those laws. That extent is usually, "reasonable amount sufficient to ensure police can intervene". Putting a person in a locked room is reasonable, if they are cooperating. Knocking a person unconscious is not reasonable, if they are fighting and potentially causing damage or harm.

 

[Derec]

This article is interesting. It is from shortly after the original incident, and seems to have a lot more detail than anything else I've seen, and per this article the altercation did start inside the store before spilling outside and then onto college property:

I agree (for the first and last time in this thread probably). The article is interesting. But note that it is from the college paper, fwiw.
My question is if Aladin and his two girlfriends really had support by several witnesses, then why didn't they go to trial so these witnesses could testify? Could it be that it is one thing saying things to a student journalist and quite another to testify in court, all sworn in and subject to cross-examination and perjury charges if caught lying?
Also this:

Gonzalez said Gibson was in the wrong, regardless of whether Aladin was shoplifting. This echoed the sentiment of many students, who said that the situation was rife with racially fueled undertones.

That's my point from OP. If you go after black shoplifters, leftists like Gonzales will see you in the wrong.

 

[dismal]

unless the college can assert that the shop owner that pursued the alleged criminals onto college property was criminally trespassing, the location of the incident is irrelevant (more or less - you can't drive, 3 days later, to the persons house in the next town, break in, and kidnap them).

If it cannot be shown that a crime was committed in the store, then the shopkeep assaulted him.
If it can be shown, then the shopkeep lawfully (attempted to) detain him.

The law is clear. It is quite simple.
You have the right to protect yourself, others, your property, and your business to the extent prescribed in those laws. That extent is usually, "reasonable amount sufficient to ensure police can intervene". Putting a person in a locked room is reasonable, if they are cooperating. Knocking a person unconscious is not reasonable, if they are fighting and potentially causing damage or harm.

The (Ohio!) law clearly allows detaining someone who you have probable cause to believe is shoplifting in the "immediate vicinity" of the establishment. That seems to be the case here. It also seems to be the case that two bottles of wine falling out from under your shirt while you flee the store is enough to establish probable cause. The one argument left would be the detention was not done in a "reasonable" manner.

 

[RavenSky]

Thank you, Dismal. I agree with Raven that it was my responsibility to point out that Ohio law is nearly identical to NY law (and all of the states are nearly identical with this fairly straight-forward law), and post it. So, Thank you for doing that for me... I appreciate it.

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

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (B)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) of this section, a violation of this section is petty theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one thousand dollars or more and is less than seven thousand five hundred dollars or if the property stolen is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, a violation of this section is theft, a felony of the fifth degree.

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.

When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953.

There is no specific crime of shoplifting in Ohio. It is simply theft to take products from a store without paying, and it is punished harshly under the law...

The charge you face for shoplifting depends on the specific property you took and its value. The more valuable the stolen items, the higher the offense. Property valued at:

Less than $1,000 is petty theft and a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

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.

 

[dismal]

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.

When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953.

There is no specific crime of shoplifting in Ohio. It is simply theft to take products from a store without paying, and it is punished harshly under the law...

The charge you face for shoplifting depends on the specific property you took and its value. The more valuable the stolen items, the higher the offense. Property valued at:

Less than $1,000 is petty theft and a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

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?

 

[Toni]

This article is interesting. It is from shortly after the original incident, and seems to have a lot more detail than anything else I've seen, and per this article the altercation did start inside the store before spilling outside and then onto college property:

I agree (for the first and last time in this thread probably). The article is interesting. But note that it is from the college paper, fwiw.
My question is if Aladin and his two girlfriends really had support by several witnesses, then why didn't they go to trial so these witnesses could testify? Could it be that it is one thing saying things to a student journalist and quite another to testify in court, all sworn in and subject to cross-examination and perjury charges if caught lying?

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.

Also this:

Gonzalez said Gibson was in the wrong, regardless of whether Aladin was shoplifting. This echoed the sentiment of many students, who said that the situation was rife with racially fueled undertones.

That's my point from OP. If you go after black shoplifters, leftists like Gonzales will see you in the wrong.

Your points would be so much better received if you didn't insist on calling people names that you think are nasty and detract from their own valid points.

Students (of any color) generally stand up for other students.

It is extremely common for there to be some degree of animosity between students and townspeople in a small college town, or in the neighborhoods surrounding colleges. Students get blamed for a lot of stuff, some of it justified, and some probably not. In turn, students often do not really venture outside of campus by more than a few blocks, unless it is to go to bars and convenience stores. They have their own very myopic view of the town and townspeople that isn't really appreciated by the larger community. Add in that these are young adults or if you believe in science, 'adults,' whose brains and higher brain functions are still developing. Most are away from home for an extended time for the first time. In addition to navigating their intellectual pursuits and even their social ones, they are also navigating what is known as 'adulting,' something that a whole lotta people aren't very good at until well into their 30's. Or well into their 70's, if we are to take our current Fearless Leader as an example.

It would not surprise me at all if there were some racial overtones to this incident, even if the shopkeeper and his family are generally pretty good people and don't consciously discriminate. It would surprise me if there was no animosity between the storekeeper and students in general.

Shoplifting is bad and illegal. Using an altered ID to obtain alcohol while underage is not great and is illegal. Also EXTREMELY common. VERY few people I know have never done this or tried to do this, with no ill intentions other than to drink while underaged and thereby assert their adulthood. Also to ease social anxieties and to try to fit in.

 

[RavenSky]

This article is interesting. It is from shortly after the original incident, and seems to have a lot more detail than anything else I've seen, and per this article the altercation did start inside the store before spilling outside and then onto college property:

I agree (for the first and last time in this thread probably). The article is interesting. But note that it is from the college paper, fwiw.

And the other articles were told from Gibson's pov. That's why reading a variety of sources tends to give a clearer picture of what may have really happened (including my own revised understanding that the physical altercation did start inside the store rather than outside)

My question is if Aladin and his two girlfriends really had support by several witnesses, then why didn't they go to trial so these witnesses could testify? Could it be that it is one thing saying things to a student journalist and quite another to testify in court, all sworn in and subject to cross-examination and perjury charges if caught lying?

So your immediate assumption is that all of the eye witnesses were liars?

But not Gibson or his son.

OK

What is more likely is that police and prosecutors piled on to these three students and their parents until they were pressured into a plea deal. One of the many articles I read on the incident said that prosecutors increased the charges and penalties from the original misdemeanors to felonies before offering a plea deal.

WARNING! SPECULATION AHEAD!

It sounds to me like there has been an undercurrent of tensions between the students on campus and the town that precedes this specific incident. There are several earlier articles in the student newspaper referencing issues. It even sounds like college officials took heat from the students for trying to work with townspeople regarding some of the problems. This isn't really that unusual in small college towns, but it does tend to serve as a backdrop to why the various actors in this shitshow behaved as they did - including police not arresting Gibson's son in spite of multiple eyewitnesses telling them at the time that Gibson's son assaulted the student.

Also this:

Gonzalez said Gibson was in the wrong, regardless of whether Aladin was shoplifting. This echoed the sentiment of many students, who said that the situation was rife with racially fueled undertones.

That's my point from OP. If you go after black shoplifters, leftists like Gonzales will see you in the wrong.

Context is important, Derec. You failed to quote what Gonzalez actually said:

“If he had been shoplifting, that’s not a reason to chase him and throw him into the ground and beat him up,” Gonzalez said.

And I agree with him. If Aladin was shoplifting (and he probably was), that does not excuse Gibson assaulting him. And if Aladin was shoplifting (and he probably was), that does not negate the likelihood of general racism inherent in students of color being singled out for higher levels of scrutiny while shopping there.

 

[Derec]

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.

Robbery is a felony regardless of value of things stolen. If he knocked out Gibson's phone from his hands, that qualifies. Note that Aladin was initially booked for a felony, even though he got a sweet plea deal for a misdemeanor.
Question still remains, of course, why didn't Aladin just ask Genie for the wine. Perhaps the Genie, being Muslim, refused the haram request.

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)

Of if he used force during the commission of the crime, which bumps it up to robbery.

Note the bolded. Assaulting the person is not a "reasonable manner".

How do you know what is considered "reasonable manner" in Ohio? The outcome of the criminal case suggests that it was deemed reasonable, otherwise Gibson Jr. would have been charged too.

Chasing the person out of the store and onto the college campus is not "its immediate vicinity".

It is if the property abuts the campus. Tappan square is literally Gibson's. See google maps.

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.

Which raises the question why these supposed eyewitnesses did not testify in court on Aladin and his codefendants' behalf? If he had several eyewitnesses backing him up, why not go to trial?

According to eye witness reports, the student was standing in line at the cashier when he was tackled by Gibson's son.

Before it was his turn? Before he showed, and Gibson rejected, his fake id? Why would he tackle him at that time?

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.

Wrong. According to the Oberlin Review article, they said the bottles could have come either from under Aladin's shirt or from the shelf. I.e. they claim ignorance on that question.

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.

If he had tackled him for no reason while he was standing in line that would have been assault and battery. And complete insane behavior for a shopkeeper.

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.

Hardly. It really matters what transpired in the store. And the fact that Aladin and others were quick to plead guilty despite strong support from college administration and students suggests that they were shoplifting andindeed attacked Gibson, not the other way around.

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.

Well, for one, Gibson wasn't charged with anything.

 

[sharon45]

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.

Also this:

Gonzalez said Gibson was in the wrong, regardless of whether Aladin was shoplifting. This echoed the sentiment of many students, who said that the situation was rife with racially fueled undertones.

That's my point from OP. If you go after black shoplifters, leftists like Gonzales will see you in the wrong.

Your points would be so much better received if you didn't insist on calling people names that you think are nasty and detract from their own valid points.

Students (of any color) generally stand up for other students.

It is extremely common for there to be some degree of animosity between students and townspeople in a small college town, or in the neighborhoods surrounding colleges. Students get blamed for a lot of stuff, some of it justified, and some probably not. In turn, students often do not really venture outside of campus by more than a few blocks, unless it is to go to bars and convenience stores. They have their own very myopic view of the town and townspeople that isn't really appreciated by the larger community. Add in that these are young adults or if you believe in science, 'adults,' whose brains and higher brain functions are still developing. Most are away from home for an extended time for the first time. In addition to navigating their intellectual pursuits and even their social ones, they are also navigating what is known as 'adulting,' something that a whole lotta people aren't very good at until well into their 30's. Or well into their 70's, if we are to take our current Fearless Leader as an example.

It would not surprise me at all if there were some racial overtones to this incident, even if the shopkeeper and his family are generally pretty good people and don't consciously discriminate. It would surprise me if there was no animosity between the storekeeper and students in general.

Shoplifting is bad and illegal. Using an altered ID to obtain alcohol while underage is not great and is illegal. Also EXTREMELY common. VERY few people I know have never done this or tried to do this, with no ill intentions other than to drink while underaged and thereby assert their adulthood. Also to ease social anxieties and to try to fit in.

All well and good, but not giving much as a bleeding heart's view of a shop owner's perspective.

 

[Derec]

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.

There are public defenders, and there are attorneys working pro bono. Given how vociferously Oberlin supports these shoplifters, don't tell me they could not find somebody defending them for free.

Your points would be so much better received if you didn't insist on calling people names that you think are nasty and detract from their own valid points.

Calling him a leftist is not "calling him names". After all, he blames all this on Trump getting elected.

Gonzalez worried President-elect Donald Trump’s victory would embolden racist behavior.
“People are afraid that this is how it’s going to be,” Gonzalez said. “For me, I’m Puerto Rican. As a person of color, it’s f—ing scary.”

Uh-huh.

Students (of any color) generally stand up for other students.

Even to the point of lying on their behalf to student newspapers?

Or well into their 70's, if we are to take our current Fearless Leader as an example.

Non-sequitur references to Trump. You have something in common with Gonzales!

It would not surprise me at all if there were some racial overtones to this incident, even if the shopkeeper and his family are generally pretty good people and don't consciously discriminate. It would surprise me if there was no animosity between the storekeeper and students in general.

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

Shoplifting is bad and illegal. Using an altered ID to obtain alcohol while underage is not great and is illegal. Also EXTREMELY common. VERY few people I know have never done this or tried to do this, with no ill intentions other than to drink while underaged and thereby assert their adulthood. Also to ease social anxieties and to try to fit in.

And if you get caught, that is not the fault of the establishment and your college should not try to run them out of business over it. Not even if they desire that piece of land as much as Hedley Lamarr desired Rock Ridge.

 

[dismal]

What's telling is Aladin never gets around to declaring himself a victim in all this. The student newspaper and the school's Diversity Fuhrer seem to be much more interested in proclaiming him the victim than he himself is.

He pleads guilty and goes on his way, leaving behind a chorus of ridiculous apologists engaging in absurd apologetics like "those bottles of wine could have fallen from anywhere" and "ZMFOG this is Ohio".

 

[Malintent]

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.

When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953.

There is no specific crime of shoplifting in Ohio. It is simply theft to take products from a store without paying, and it is punished harshly under the law...

The charge you face for shoplifting depends on the specific property you took and its value. The more valuable the stolen items, the higher the offense. Property valued at:

Less than $1,000 is petty theft and a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

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.

I'm not as interested in supplying proof that I am right as you seem to be invested in. The nit you are picking is my use of the term "citizens arrest", which is a broad term. the topic concerns shoplifting, and the law is specific to that situation. When any citizen detains another for the purpose of aiding a police officer, it is loosely referred to as a citizen's arrest. That is why you are not finding what you are looking for, I think.

I was totally wrong about a point I was not making... reference to a general citizens arrest rather than the specific matter at hand
You were totally right, the store is in Ohio (and no one disagreed with you on that).

feel better, I hope?

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not as interested in supplying proof that I am right as you seem to be invested in.

Since you were not at all correct, that is probably wise on your part.

The laws are clear. You were neither clear nor correct.

I will also note that it is still me supporting my position with factual cited sources; something you still fail to do. You have yet to refute anything I've said.

You can continue to hand-waive away your errors if you wish... I've made my point.

 

[Toni]

There are public defenders, and there are attorneys working pro bono. Given how vociferously Oberlin supports these shoplifters, don't tell me they could not find somebody defending them for free.

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.

Calling him a leftist is not "calling him names". After all, he blames all this on Trump getting elected.

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.

Even to the point of lying on their behalf to student newspapers?

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

Non-sequitur references to Trump. You have something in common with Gonzales!

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.

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.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Even to the point of lying on their behalf to student newspapers?

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

Non-sequitur references to Trump. You have something in common with Gonzales!

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since Gibson's is suing the college for money, and not the other way around, your response is bupkus

The college shakedown was for a lack of prosecution, not for $.

You are babbling now

So you don't have any defense to my point?

It was the college that came to him demanding shoplifting be referred to them rather than the police. Thus it's the college doing the shakedown. They just responded with a lawsuit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No prolly not NY.. you may not be wrong depending on state law. The laws differ only slightly, though, as far as I understand they are more restrictive to the shopowner in NY than average. I highly doubt the subtle differences would be relevant to the incident in the parking lot. If anything, the shopkeeper in that state may have been allowed to shoot the fleeing suspects in the back... not likely he would have been MORE restricted in what he could legally do to detain, etc.. If I'm wrong, I apologize... show me the law in that state, if you feel like it.

So which is it?

Is Oberlin College in New York or is it in Ohio? It would be very easy for you to determine this small detail. (Hint: I already know the answer)

And once you have determined which state the college is in, perhaps you should also endeavor to determine whether the laws of Ohio are the same as they are in New York - the latter being the only state you say you have any expertise in.

Further, Gibson's alleged assault on the students took place on college property, not in Gibson's parking lot. This is another fact you would be able to ascertain for yourself had you looked into the incident instead of misguidedly defending Loren's incorrect claims.

If you are going to boldly proclaim that I am wrong, I strongly suggest that you support your claim with something resembling facts rather than your musings. No, I am not going to do your research for you after you have made your unsubstantiated claims.

Thank you.

The relevant law has already been posted. And the fact that it happened on college property doesn't change the facts. The merchant was attempting to recover stolen property and detain the thieves for the police. 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.

 

[dismal]

You are babbling now

So you don't have any defense to my point?

It was the college that came to him demanding shoplifting be referred to them rather than the police. Thus it's the college doing the shakedown. They just responded with a lawsuit.

I found a copy of the lawsuit earlier. Their case has a lot to do with the college supporting the protests and libelous claims made against Gibsons. I.e., they let the activists use college copiers to print the libelous flyers, they gave students times off class to obstruct their business, certain college employees actively participated in the protest, etc.

I'll add a link when I can find it again.

https://oberlinreview.org/wp-conten...Bros.-v-Oberlin-College-Meredith-Raimondo.pdf

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This article is interesting. It is from shortly after the original incident, and seems to have a lot more detail than anything else I've seen, and per this article the altercation did start inside the store before spilling outside and then onto college property:

Detailed, yes, but it doens't add anything of importance.

Note the robbery charge--the police are taking the side of the bakery.

https://oberlinreview.org/11713/news/students-call-for-gibsons-bakery-boycott/

And here's the key point--your "evidence" comes from the mouthpiece of one side of the issue. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

 

[RavenSky]

You are babbling now

So you don't have any defense to my point?

Your "point" was incomprehensible.

It was the college that came to him demanding shoplifting be referred to them rather than the police. Thus it's the college doing the shakedown. They just responded with a lawsuit.

Factually wrong