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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Unless Ohio has some sort of vigilante justice law that that you know of that allows employees to take the law into their own hands and impersonate officers in assaulting and restraining people outside of their establishment--and on public property, no less--that they merely suspect of being shoplifters, then at the very least the police should have arrested everyone involved until such time as they could figure out who did what and why.

Not sure about Ohio specifically, but most states have provision for a citizen's arrest...

In Ohio, a citizen's arrest can evidently only be made in the case of a felony crime:

Ohio’s “citizen’s arrest” law, found in section 2935.04 of the Ohio Revised Code, speaks clearly to the procedure. First, you must have reason to believe the offender committed a felony. Only police officers can make arrests for misdemeanor crimes.

Second, you must take the offender before a judge, clerk of court or a magistrate or have an officer authorized to execute criminal warrants take the offender before the court. An affidavit must be filed stating why the person was arrested.

“Felonies are capital offenses and a reasonable person would know,” Maier said. “J-walking, littering are misdemeanor violations. A citizen would not have the right to engage themselves in something of that nature, but that certainly shouldn’t deter them from reporting a crime.”

Considering the Gibsons have been in business for decades and they allegedly have suspected Oberlin students in particular of excessive shoplifting, every employee--let alone the owner's son--would be well-versed in what they can and cannot do in the case of suspected shoplifting and unless this kid was stealing a gold bearclaw, that wouldn't cut it.

"Shoplifting" (aka, Theft in Ohio penal code) of items under $1,000 in value is a misdemeanor.

In regard to detention in the case of shoplifting I found this (emphasis mine):

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.

(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.
...
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A), (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

I'd say chasing, tackling and choke-holds would constitute "undue restraint upon the person."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless Ohio has some sort of vigilante justice law that that you know of that allows employees to take the law into their own hands and impersonate officers in assaulting and restraining people outside of their establishment--and on public property, no less--that they merely suspect of being shoplifters, then at the very least the police should have arrested everyone involved until such time as they could figure out who did what and why.

Instead, they let the white guy--the one who was actually committing the violence--go while arresting the ones who were defending the guy who allegedly was trying to shoplift.

Or does he also not get due process protection under Ohio law?

What you are missing is that the violence you refer to was an attempt to restrain a shoplifter. A big liability risk but not illegal. The police arrested who they should have.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the guys defending were also breaking the law. The use of force in defense of another is limited by the status of the person that they are defending. When you defend someone against legally applied force you are breaking the law.

In the end it comes down to whether he was actually shoplifting. As things didn't get reversed it's pretty obvious he was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In regard to detention in the case of shoplifting I found this (emphasis mine):

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.

(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.
...
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A), (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

I'd say chasing, tackling and choke-holds would constitute "undue restraint upon the person."

You thinking it's undue restraint doesn't make it so. I'm not finding anything discussing exactly what constitutes undue restraint but I did find a case where the shoplifter died and it wasn't considered undue restraint and his mother got nothing in the civil suit. (The case I found involved following and tackling, the shoplifter died from having too much weight on him from the tacklers. Since the guy fought rather than ran there was no chase.)

 

[blastula]

Just been reading about this and it looks like a clear cut good outcome. Why is anyone defending Oberlin here?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because if Koy was right on the facts, he would have a point. See my post above. Apparently the jury found otherwise on the facts however. Reversing on a jury's finding of facts is much harder than reversing on a judge's finding of law (or procedural error). So Koy has very little if any point and is blowing hot air again.

The idea in theory is that if the school did nothing but ensure safety and/or provide a venue for the speech, then to find them liable for it would set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of things that get said on campus or with them providing security off of it, etc. Imagine a speech by Milo if he unpredictability slandered somebody in it etc, and people wanting to hold the school responsible.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Unless Ohio has some sort of vigilante justice law that that you know of that allows employees to take the law into their own hands and impersonate officers in assaulting and restraining people outside of their establishment--and on public property, no less--that they merely suspect of being shoplifters, then at the very least the police should have arrested everyone involved until such time as they could figure out who did what and why.

Instead, they let the white guy--the one who was actually committing the violence--go while arresting the ones who were defending the guy who allegedly was trying to shoplift.

Or does he also not get due process protection under Ohio law?

What you are missing is that the violence you refer to was an attempt to restrain a shoplifter.

What you are missing is "alleged" shoplifter and neither violence nor restraint is allowed in regard to anything under $1,000 worth of goods. It must be a felony offense for a citizen's arrest in Ohio.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the guys defending were also breaking the law.

It most certainly does, since they would have no way of knowing why the kid was being attacked. To them, it would simply be coming to the aid of a victim of assault.

In the end it comes down to whether he was actually shoplifting.

No, it actually doesn't, because until such time as it is proved in a court of law, all individuals are presumed innocent. What Gibson's should have done--according to the law--is called the police the minute they suspected the kid might be shoplifting. Unless that kid was trying to steal a 2000 Château Lafite Rothschild Bordeaux, they had no cause to attempt a citizen's arrest at all.

Regardless, as the statute makes very clear, no one is allowed to:

search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

In short, you can't touch him even if he were stealing something with a value over $1,000.

So, no matter what, the police should have arrested everyone involved--Allyn for assault and the kid for alleged shoplifting.

As things didn't get reversed it's pretty obvious he was.

Because the police and local jurisdictions never fuck shit up.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Because if Koy was right on the facts, he would have a point.

I am and I do. Thanks, JP.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You thinking it's undue restraint doesn't make it so.

That's right, it needs to be determined by a court, which is why the police should have arrested Allyn as well.

The facts are that no citizen can make a citizen's arrest unless a felony is in progress. There was no felony in progress, so a citizen's arrest could not happen and Allyn Gibson could not argue that's what he was invoking.

In regard specifically to shoplifting, no merchant is allowed to:

search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

If there was a question of whether or not assault/chokeholds constituted undue restraint, the police should have arrested Allyn and allowed the courts to decide. Hence the protest and citizens believing racial bias, both on the part of Gibson's and the police.

I'm not finding anything discussing exactly what constitutes undue restraint

Considering the fact that, just prior to that part, merchants are explicitly not allowed to search the person or seize any property belonging to them "without the person's consent" I'd say it's pretty easy to determine that prolonged physical assault--for a misdemeanor offense--would be undue.

but I did find a case where the shoplifter died and it wasn't considered undue restraint and his mother got nothing in the civil suit.

Link. And note that, if true and in the same district in Ohio, then all you've presented would be evidence of a pattern of malfeasance.

ETA: Although from an Ohio law firm, I found this:

In 2004 shoplifting laws were modified so that the right of the shopkeeper to detain a person is limited to "a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." They cannot arrest you at your home. They do not have the right to force you off the road. They do not have the right to tackle you if you are not resisting. They do not have the right to use unnecessary force. They must be in the vicinity of their store.

And there's this (same source):

Did you exit the store? Did you pass the front registers? The law states you must deprive the owner of the property. If you intended to pay and did not pass the registers or exit the store, the law may not apply.

What happens when a subject inside the store hides an item in his or her pocket and is arrested prior to leaving the store? That becomes the decision of the judge or the jury. Did that person remove a security tag prior to putting it in his pocket? Did he or she remove the packaging or price tag? Intent can be shown prior to leaving the store.

From the Oberlin petition for summary judgment (emphasis mine):

On the late afternoon of November 9, 2016, the 32-year-old son and grandson of the owners of Gibson's Bakery—an institution in the City of Oberlin—violently and unreasonably attacked an unarmed 19-year-old Oberlin College student who he suspected of trying to steal two bottles of wine from his family's store while purchasing another bottle with a fake ID. This Bakery employee accosted the student inside the store, then chased the student out of the store across West College Street and into Tappan Square, the green space that connects the College to the City of Oberlin, where he placed the student in a chokehold in plain view of shocked passersby.

So, the kid never crossed any threshold; never deprived the store of their property. Until he was evidently forced out into the public square by Allyn Jr.

Indeed, the whole protest centered around Gibson's "archaic chase and detain" policy toward suspected shoplifters:

What is clear is that 2-1/2 years after the protests, Plaintiffs [Gibson's] still do not understand that Gibson's Bakery's archaic chase and detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.
...
[T]he protests originated because Plaintiffs thrust themselves into the heart of an issue of public concern when they chose to execute their chase and detain policy beyond the borders of their store and into full public view of their customer base. Nobody, least of all Oberlin College, has ever denied that shopkeepers possess a statutory right to use "reasonable" efforts to detain suspected shoplifters. However, when and how a business confronts and detains a suspected shoplifter is a serious matter. Plaintiff's decision to unleash the martial arts trained 32-year-old Allyn D. Gibson ("Allyn, Jr"), who initiated three separate rundowns and physical altercations with a black Oberlin student in full public view, thrust the Bakery into public debate as to whether the conduct wa reasonable or racially motivated.

ETA: Here's yet another excellent point (emphasis mine):

Later, when the male student was charged with felony robbery rather than shoplifting, even as his fake ID suggested at the very least that his initial intent had been to make a purchase, many at Oberlin perceived a miscarriage of justice and wondered whether race had played a role in the charging decision. That, too, is easy to understand.

If he was intent on shoplifting, then why present his fake ID at all? And how could he have been charged with felony robbery? Again, were these $500 bottles of wine?

And of further note (and the piece I'm quoting from is by no means pro-Oberlin):

While pleading guilty to misdemeanor theft charges in August 2017, each of the students would declare in an official statement, “I believe the employees of Gibson’s actions were not racially motivated. They were merely trying to prevent an underage sale.”

Well, gee. They were charged with felony theft, so it sure as shit looks to me that they were coerced into making such a statement as a condition of the more lenient plea deal to a misdemeanor.

And note the wording. Gibson's were not trying to prevent a theft; they were trying to prevent an "underage sale."

The more you dig, the bigger the stench. MUCH was made of these "confessions," but they are very clearly coerced and don't even stipulate to shoplifting! Legal Insurrection noted (emphasis mine):

[T]he boycotts and protests against Gibson organized by students, and allegedly encouraged and coordinate with Oberlin administrators, were not primarily about a supposed assault on a student. Certainly, that was part of the mix, but the primary attack on Gibson’s was and still is that it allegedly engaged in racial profiling and unfairly targeted three black students with false claims of shoplifting. The guilty pleas put the lie to that line of protest, yet it it the defense laid out for Oberlin and Raimondo in their court filings.

No, the "guilty pleas" very clearly do NOT "put the lie to that line of protest." Quite the opposite in fact. Three college kids faced with felony charges--thereby ruining their lives forever--instead plead to what it should have always been, a misdemeanor--and then only the one kid that allegedly shoplifted--so long as they inexplicably and for no legal reason each affirm that Gibson's wasn't racially motivated, they just wanted to protect the kids against an underrage sale.

Fuck no.

Why would the DA require each of the kids to affirm anything at all about their personal opinions as to whether or not they thought the Gibson's were racists in their plea deals and wtf is up with the inclusion of trying to prevent an underrage sale, not trying to reasonably detain a suspected shoplifter, or the like?

So, let's recap. The cops show up to find someone they likely know, but regardless, a 32 year old white guy assaulting a seventeen year old black kid (and two girls, probably same age, trying to help him) in a public space. They arrest only the black kids, not the white guy committing the assault.

The white guy and his dad--the owner of the Bakery--take off immediately. Just gone the next day. A protest over the events erupts the next day as well.

The kids are presumably booked and processed, while this is all going on, so before any plea deal is being worked out, the protest erupts and accusations of racial bias are publicly expressed by about a hundred or so citizens (not just Oberlin students).

At some point long after the protests, the DA decides to charge all three kids, apparently, with a career ending/life destroying charge of felony robbery, but will plea them down to nothing more than a misdemeanor (what it should have been to begin with and then only for the one who actually allegedly shoplifted), IF they inexplicably ALL declare that in their opinions, they didn't think Gibson's acted out of racial motivations, they were merely trying to prevent an underrage sale (not a "felony robbery" or "shoplifting," but a sale).

Yeah, that dog don't hunt.

It is these "confessions" that are evidently what puts the "lie" to Oberlin's defense. Which means, that since these "confessions" were clearly coerced, it puts the truth to Oberlin's defense.

 

[Gun Nut]

In Ohio, a citizen's arrest can evidently only be made in the case of a felony crime:

Ohio’s “citizen’s arrest” law, found in section 2935.04 of the Ohio Revised Code, speaks clearly to the procedure. First, you must have reason to believe the offender committed a felony. Only police officers can make arrests for misdemeanor crimes.

Second, you must take the offender before a judge, clerk of court or a magistrate or have an officer authorized to execute criminal warrants take the offender before the court. An affidavit must be filed stating why the person was arrested.

“Felonies are capital offenses and a reasonable person would know,” Maier said. “J-walking, littering are misdemeanor violations. A citizen would not have the right to engage themselves in something of that nature, but that certainly shouldn’t deter them from reporting a crime.”

Considering the Gibsons have been in business for decades and they allegedly have suspected Oberlin students in particular of excessive shoplifting, every employee--let alone the owner's son--would be well-versed in what they can and cannot do in the case of suspected shoplifting and unless this kid was stealing a gold bearclaw, that wouldn't cut it.

"Shoplifting" (aka, Theft in Ohio penal code) of items under $1,000 in value is a misdemeanor.

In regard to detention in the case of shoplifting I found this (emphasis mine):

2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.

(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.
...
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A), (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

I'd say chasing, tackling and choke-holds would constitute "undue restraint upon the person."

OK... not sure that I agree that what they did does constitute "undue restraint... that would require a bit more research into prior judgement... but I concede your point. Ohio has more restrictive regulation on that than many other states.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's right, it needs to be determined by a court, which is why the police should have arrested Allyn as well.

The facts are that no citizen can make a citizen's arrest unless a felony is in progress. There was no felony in progress, so a citizen's arrest could not happen and Allyn Gibson could not argue that's what he was invoking.

In regard specifically to shoplifting, no merchant is allowed to:



If there was a question of whether or not assault/chokeholds constituted undue restraint, the police should have arrested Allyn and allowed the courts to decide. Hence the protest and citizens believing racial bias, both on the part of Gibson's and the police.

I'm not finding anything discussing exactly what constitutes undue restraint

Considering the fact that, just prior to that part, merchants are explicitly not allowed to search the person or seize any property belonging to them "without the person's consent" I'd say it's pretty easy to determine that prolonged physical assault--for a misdemeanor offense--would be undue.

but I did find a case where the shoplifter died and it wasn't considered undue restraint and his mother got nothing in the civil suit.

Link. And note that, if true and in the same district in Ohio, then all you've presented would be evidence of a pattern of malfeasance.

ETA: Although from an Ohio law firm, I found this:

In 2004 shoplifting laws were modified so that the right of the shopkeeper to detain a person is limited to "a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." They cannot arrest you at your home. They do not have the right to force you off the road. They do not have the right to tackle you if you are not resisting. They do not have the right to use unnecessary force. They must be in the vicinity of their store.

And there's this (same source):

Did you exit the store? Did you pass the front registers? The law states you must deprive the owner of the property. If you intended to pay and did not pass the registers or exit the store, the law may not apply.

What happens when a subject inside the store hides an item in his or her pocket and is arrested prior to leaving the store? That becomes the decision of the judge or the jury. Did that person remove a security tag prior to putting it in his pocket? Did he or she remove the packaging or price tag? Intent can be shown prior to leaving the store.

From the Oberlin petition for summary judgment (emphasis mine):

On the late afternoon of November 9, 2016, the 32-year-old son and grandson of the owners of Gibson's Bakery—an institution in the City of Oberlin—violently and unreasonably attacked an unarmed 19-year-old Oberlin College student who he suspected of trying to steal two bottles of wine from his family's store while purchasing another bottle with a fake ID. This Bakery employee accosted the student inside the store, then chased the student out of the store across West College Street and into Tappan Square, the green space that connects the College to the City of Oberlin, where he placed the student in a chokehold in plain view of shocked passersby.

So, the kid never crossed any threshold; never deprived the store of their property. Until he was evidently forced out into the public square by Allyn Jr.

Indeed, the whole protest centered around Gibson's "archaic chase and detain" policy toward suspected shoplifters:

What is clear is that 2-1/2 years after the protests, Plaintiffs [Gibson's] still do not understand that Gibson's Bakery's archaic chase and detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.
...
[T]he protests originated because Plaintiffs thrust themselves into the heart of an issue of public concern when they chose to execute their chase and detain policy beyond the borders of their store and into full public view of their customer base. Nobody, least of all Oberlin College, has ever denied that shopkeepers possess a statutory right to use "reasonable" efforts to detain suspected shoplifters. However, when and how a business confronts and detains a suspected shoplifter is a serious matter. Plaintiff's decision to unleash the martial arts trained 32-year-old Allyn D. Gibson ("Allyn, Jr"), who initiated three separate rundowns and physical altercations with a black Oberlin student in full public view, thrust the Bakery into public debate as to whether the conduct wa reasonable or racially motivated.

ETA: Here's yet another excellent point (emphasis mine):

Later, when the male student was charged with felony robbery rather than shoplifting, even as his fake ID suggested at the very least that his initial intent had been to make a purchase, many at Oberlin perceived a miscarriage of justice and wondered whether race had played a role in the charging decision. That, too, is easy to understand.

If he was intent on shoplifting, then why present his fake ID at all? And how could he have been charged with felony robbery? Again, were these $500 bottles of wine?

And of further note (and the piece I'm quoting from is by no means pro-Oberlin):

While pleading guilty to misdemeanor theft charges in August 2017, each of the students would declare in an official statement, “I believe the employees of Gibson’s actions were not racially motivated. They were merely trying to prevent an underage sale.”

Well, gee. They were charged with felony theft, so it sure as shit looks to me that they were coerced into making such a statement as a condition of the more lenient plea deal to a misdemeanor.

And note the wording. Gibson's were not trying to prevent a theft; they were trying to prevent an "underage sale."

The more you dig, the bigger the stench. MUCH was made of these "confessions," but they are very clearly coerced and don't even stipulate to shoplifting! Legal Insurrection noted (emphasis mine):

[T]he boycotts and protests against Gibson organized by students, and allegedly encouraged and coordinate with Oberlin administrators, were not primarily about a supposed assault on a student. Certainly, that was part of the mix, but the primary attack on Gibson’s was and still is that it allegedly engaged in racial profiling and unfairly targeted three black students with false claims of shoplifting. The guilty pleas put the lie to that line of protest, yet it it the defense laid out for Oberlin and Raimondo in their court filings.

No, the "guilty pleas" very clearly do NOT "put the lie to that line of protest." Quite the opposite in fact. Three college kids faced with felony charges--thereby ruining their lives forever--instead plead to what it should have always been, a misdemeanor--and then only the one kid that allegedly shoplifted--so long as they inexplicably and for no legal reason each affirm that Gibson's wasn't racially motivated, they just wanted to protect the kids against an underrage sale.

Fuck no.

Why would the DA require each of the kids to affirm anything at all about their personal opinions as to whether or not they thought the Gibson's were racists in their plea deals and wtf is up with the inclusion of trying to prevent an underrage sale, not trying to reasonably detain a suspected shoplifter, or the like?

So, let's recap. The cops show up to find someone they likely know, but regardless, a 32 year old white guy assaulting a seventeen year old black kid (and two girls, probably same age, trying to help him) in a public space. They arrest only the black kids, not the white guy committing the assault.

The white guy and his dad--the owner of the Bakery--take off immediately. Just gone the next day. A protest over the events erupts the next day as well.

The kids are presumably booked and processed, while this is all going on, so before any plea deal is being worked out, the protest erupts and accusations of racial bias are publicly expressed by about a hundred or so citizens (not just Oberlin students).

At some point long after the protests, the DA decides to charge all three kids, apparently, with a career ending/life destroying charge of felony robbery, but will plea them down to nothing more than a misdemeanor (what it should have been to begin with and then only for the one who actually allegedly shoplifted), IF they inexplicably ALL declare that in their opinions, they didn't think Gibson's acted out of racial motivations, they were merely trying to prevent an underrage sale (not a "felony robbery" or "shoplifting," but a sale).

Yeah, that dog don't hunt.

It is these "confessions" that are evidently what puts the "lie" to Oberlin's defense. Which means, that since these "confessions" were clearly coerced, it puts the truth to Oberlin's defense.

Great analysis.

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?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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?

 

[blastula]

Because if Koy was right on the facts, he would have a point. See my post above. Apparently the jury found otherwise on the facts however. Reversing on a jury's finding of facts is much harder than reversing on a judge's finding of law (or procedural error). So Koy has very little if any point and is blowing hot air again.

The idea in theory is that if the school did nothing but ensure safety and/or provide a venue for the speech, then to find them liable for it would set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of things that get said on campus or with them providing security off of it, etc. Imagine a speech by Milo if he unpredictability slandered somebody in it etc, and people wanting to hold the school responsible.

I looked at recent posts and see nothing relevant to the decision. Arguing about what police did that day is irrelevant to libel issue of saying Gibson had a "LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION." The only chance Oberlin would have had is if Gibson were ruled a public figure or they could prove the statements true. They failed, and they should have known they would fail but they've been very reckless and arrogant throughout, not taking responsibility for anything. They should have settled the case before the trial. Their post-trial comments have been no better.
This college has learned nothing.

I also don't see this case impacting free speech issues or other common college controversies. Oberlin libeled by their own actions, not the students'. This was a particular set of facts that isn't met in the typical controversies.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

libel issue of saying Gibson had a "LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION." The only chance Oberlin would have had is if Gibson were ruled a public figure or they could prove the statements true.

An opinion cannot be libelous and, regardless, they did provide evidence to support such an opinion.

More importantly, however, is this:

Three Oberlin College students whose arrests touched off protests at Gibson’s Bakery last year have been indicted on robbery charges.

It took a year--long after the protests--to indict? And note what the DA did:

Jonathan Aladin, 19, of Trenton, N.J., Endia Lawrence, 19, of Oberlin, and Cecelia Whettstone, 19, of Oberlin, turned themselves in at Lorain County Jail on Friday morning and were released on bond.

In addition to the robbery charge he faces, Aladin also is charged with forgery for a fake ID he had, Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will said.

Will largely declined to discuss the allegations against the three students, which were presented during a grand jury session Wednesday following an investigation by his office and Oberlin police.

He said the robbery charges would have been leveled against Lawrence and Whettstone only if the grand jury determined that they had “acted in concert or been part of a common scheme or plan.”

An Oberlin police report on the incident said Allyn Gibson, whose family owns the store, refused to sell Aladin a bottle of wine Nov. 9 before confronting him about two bottles of wine Aladin allegedly was concealing under his shirt.

Gibson told Aladin not to leave because he was calling police, the report said. When Aladin did try to leave, Gibson reportedly took out his phone to take a picture of the student.

The report said Aladin slapped Gibson’s phone out of his hand, which caused it to hit him in the face. Aladin then ran from the store, breaking two bottles of wine on his way out.

Gibson chased him outside and across the street, where police reported there was a physical confrontation. Officers reported that when they arrived Gibson was on the ground with Aladin, Lawrence and Whettstone hitting him.

Aladin initially was charged with robbery, but the charge was dropped after Oberlin Municipal Court Judge Thomas Januzzi rejected a plea deal in the case. The matter was then forwarded to Will’s office for further review.

Whettstone and Lawrence were facing misdemeanor assault charges and had been slated to go on trial this month, but their case was delayed at the municipal level after their defense attorney, Jack Bradley, told Januzzi he learned that his clients might face felony charges.

Bradley said Friday he expects the misdemeanor charges against his clients will be dropped now that they are under felony indictment.

Bradley said the robbery charges against Lawrence and Whettstone appear to be based on the theory that they were complicit in the robbery because prosecutors have evidence they were in Gibson’s before the robbery. He said prosecutors suspect the pair knew what Aladin allegedly had planned.

However, he said neither was inside the store when Aladin tried to buy the wine and initially clashed with Gibson.

“I am certain they were not inside Gibson’s when the alleged theft took place,” Bradley said.

He said he was disappointed by the felony charges against his clients and Aladin because of the potential long-term effect the charges could have on their lives.

“It’s too bad, these are young college kids,” Bradley said. “Even if something did happen, you don’t want to ruin somebody’s entire life.”

Robert Beck Jr., Aladin’s attorney, declined to comment Friday, as did representatives from Gibson’s and Oberlin College.

The arrests of the three students sparked days of protests and counterprotests outside the store, with critics suggesting Gibson’s engaged in racial profiling and discrimination. Allyn Gibson is white, while Aladin, Lawrence and Whettstone are black.

Jesus fucking hell. The two other kids--the girls--weren't even in the store at the time, yet they faced felony charges (after initially being charged with misdemeanors). The "two bottles of wine" the kid allegedly was trying to steal--at the same time he was trying to buy a bottle with a fake ID--just disappear, but look how conveniently it is mentioned that:

Aladin then ran from the store, breaking two bottles of wine on his way out.

Not, "dropping the two bottles he allegedly had up his sleeves" just that he ran which evidently caused the "breaking of two bottles of wine on his way out." So they could just as easily have been in a stack or on a table, etc.

So here's what really happened. The kid went in to buy a bottle of wine with his fake ID. Allyn spotted the fake ID and threatened to call the police or took out his phone to take a picture or the like, the kid freaked out and ran, Allyn ran after him.

There was no shoplifting attempt and the girls certainly weren't involved at all.

Shit escalated once outside, with Allyn beating up the kid, so the two girls--girls--tried to stop Allyn (a grown 32 year old man and martial arts expert, apparently) from further abuse and either knocked him off of the other kid or otherwise got the better of Allyn when the cops show up.

They don't arrest Allyn--the white guy--and instead haul off all three kids and word, of course, gets around.

Protest.

Shit gets ugly over the next year between Oberlin students in particular and Gibson's--with a lot of racially charged opinions flying all around--so the DA decides to come in heavy with threats of felonies and ruining all three students' lives if they don't sign statements attesting to the fact that race was a factor, etc.

Of course the kids don't say shit about the deal, because if they did they'd be facing fucking felony robbery charges. They sign whatever they're told to sign and stick by it because of course they would. They're fucking kids ffs staring white power about to fuck their lives up permanently over what was likely a twenty dollar bottle of wine. Not stolen, but fake ID.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is "alleged" shoplifter and neither violence nor restraint is allowed in regard to anything under $1,000 worth of goods. It must be a felony offense for a citizen's arrest in Ohio.

You are applying the wrong standard. This isn't about citizens arrest, it's about the rights shopkeepers have with regard to shoplifters. Note that the previously cited law said "undue" restraint--which should make it obvious that some forms of restraint are permitted, otherwise there would be no need for a qualifier.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the guys defending were also breaking the law.

It most certainly does, since they would have no way of knowing why the kid was being attacked. To them, it would simply be coming to the aid of a victim of assault.

I already explained, it does matter. That's why you have to be very careful when intervening in someone else's fight--if you have misunderstood the situation you can end up in jail yourself even though you thought you were doing good.

In the end it comes down to whether he was actually shoplifting.

No, it actually doesn't, because until such time as it is proved in a court of law, all individuals are presumed innocent. What Gibson's should have done--according to the law--is called the police the minute they suspected the kid might be shoplifting. Unless that kid was trying to steal a 2000 Château Lafite Rothschild Bordeaux, they had no cause to attempt a citizen's arrest at all.

If you don't detain him at the time you're going to have a hard time proving who it was. I've already shown that it is legal to detain suspected shoplifters.

Regardless, as the statute makes very clear, no one is allowed to:

search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

In short, you can't touch him even if he were stealing something with a value over $1,000.

You can't conduct any sort of search and you can't use undue restraint--which means you can use due restraint. You do the minimum needed to hold him for the police, you let the police do the investigating.

 

[blastula]

An opinion cannot be libelous and, regardless, they did provide evidence to support such an opinion.

Not opinion, it's a verifiable statement and they didn't verify it.

More importantly, however, is this:

Completely irrelevant to the libel. And if you think there was such a clear injustice there, golly, too bad you weren't their lawyer, because the ones they had must have really sucked to have them plead guilty to way more than they there were guilty of. Go get their records cleared, you can do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there was a question of whether or not assault/chokeholds constituted undue restraint, the police should have arrested Allyn and allowed the courts to decide. Hence the protest and citizens believing racial bias, both on the part of Gibson's and the police.

You just want him arrested. This is a situation where flight is very unlikely and there's a good chance he did nothing wrong. If the police arrest him he's likely to be suing them.

I'm not finding anything discussing exactly what constitutes undue restraint

Considering the fact that, just prior to that part, merchants are explicitly not allowed to search the person or seize any property belonging to them "without the person's consent" I'd say it's pretty easy to determine that prolonged physical assault--for a misdemeanor offense--would be undue.

Not being allowed to search says nothing about what can be done to restrain.

but I did find a case where the shoplifter died and it wasn't considered undue restraint and his mother got nothing in the civil suit.

Link. And note that, if true and in the same district in Ohio, then all you've presented would be evidence of a pattern of malfeasance.

I don't think this was the same location at all. The case went to the jury, the jury decided the dead guy was primarily at fault for what happened and it was in a state with a comparative fault law so the mother got nothing.

ETA: Although from an Ohio law firm, I found this:

In 2004 shoplifting laws were modified so that the right of the shopkeeper to detain a person is limited to "a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." They cannot arrest you at your home. They do not have the right to force you off the road. They do not have the right to tackle you if you are not resisting. They do not have the right to use unnecessary force. They must be in the vicinity of their store.

Immediate vicinity--yes, he chased the guy out of the store. Forcing off the road? This was a foot chase, no cars.

Tackle? Note that it says "if you are not resisting". Thus implying that tackling is acceptable if the person is resisting. We have no indication of unnecessary force.

Sounds like you just shot yourself in the foot.

And there's this (same source):

Did you exit the store? Did you pass the front registers? The law states you must deprive the owner of the property. If you intended to pay and did not pass the registers or exit the store, the law may not apply.

What happens when a subject inside the store hides an item in his or her pocket and is arrested prior to leaving the store? That becomes the decision of the judge or the jury. Did that person remove a security tag prior to putting it in his pocket? Did he or she remove the packaging or price tag? Intent can be shown prior to leaving the store.

From the Oberlin petition for summary judgment (emphasis mine):

On the late afternoon of November 9, 2016, the 32-year-old son and grandson of the owners of Gibson's Bakery—an institution in the City of Oberlin—violently and unreasonably attacked an unarmed 19-year-old Oberlin College student who he suspected of trying to steal two bottles of wine from his family's store while purchasing another bottle with a fake ID. This Bakery employee accosted the student inside the store, then chased the student out of the store across West College Street and into Tappan Square, the green space that connects the College to the City of Oberlin, where he placed the student in a chokehold in plain view of shocked passersby.

So, the kid never crossed any threshold; never deprived the store of their property. Until he was evidently forced out into the public square by Allyn Jr.

Never crossed any threshold? He was inside then he was outside! He was challenged while in the store and chose to make a run for it and got caught.

Indeed, the whole protest centered around Gibson's "archaic chase and detain" policy toward suspected shoplifters:

What is clear is that 2-1/2 years after the protests, Plaintiffs [Gibson's] still do not understand that Gibson's Bakery's archaic chase and detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.

So the protests were because the bakery protected itself rather than simply rolled over and played victim.

[T]he protests originated because Plaintiffs thrust themselves into the heart of an issue of public concern when they chose to execute their chase and detain policy beyond the borders of their store and into full public view of their customer base. Nobody, least of all Oberlin College, has ever denied that shopkeepers possess a statutory right to use "reasonable" efforts to detain suspected shoplifters. However, when and how a business confronts and detains a suspected shoplifter is a serious matter. Plaintiff's decision to unleash the martial arts trained 32-year-old Allyn D. Gibson ("Allyn, Jr"), who initiated three separate rundowns and physical altercations with a black Oberlin student in full public view, thrust the Bakery into public debate as to whether the conduct wa reasonable or racially motivated.

Note that the jury didn't buy this crap playing of the race card.

ETA: Here's yet another excellent point (emphasis mine):

Later, when the male student was charged with felony robbery rather than shoplifting, even as his fake ID suggested at the very least that his initial intent had been to make a purchase, many at Oberlin perceived a miscarriage of justice and wondered whether race had played a role in the charging decision. That, too, is easy to understand.

If he was intent on shoplifting, then why present his fake ID at all? And how could he have been charged with felony robbery? Again, were these $500 bottles of wine?

It looks like he tried to purchase one as a cover for why he picked up the bottles. And he very well might have been expecting to be refused and then walk out with the hidden ones.

And of further note (and the piece I'm quoting from is by no means pro-Oberlin):

While pleading guilty to misdemeanor theft charges in August 2017, each of the students would declare in an official statement, “I believe the employees of Gibson’s actions were not racially motivated. They were merely trying to prevent an underage sale.”

Well, gee. They were charged with felony theft, so it sure as shit looks to me that they were coerced into making such a statement as a condition of the more lenient plea deal to a misdemeanor.

And note the wording. Gibson's were not trying to prevent a theft; they were trying to prevent an "underage sale."

I went looking for what constitutes felony theft in Ohio. You're looking only at the dollar amount but it also becomes felony theft when the owner is a member of certain protected classes. One of those classes is elderly. This is a family-owned business, Allyn was the grandson of one of the owners. Since he was in his 30's it makes it likely that said owner was elderly. (I have not managed to find their age.) That could easily be where the felony theft charges came from.

No, the "guilty pleas" very clearly do NOT "put the lie to that line of protest." Quite the opposite in fact. Three college kids faced with felony charges--thereby ruining their lives forever--instead plead to what it should have always been, a misdemeanor--and then only the one kid that allegedly shoplifted--so long as they inexplicably and for no legal reason each affirm that Gibson's wasn't racially motivated, they just wanted to protect the kids against an underrage sale.

1) I showed how it easily could be a felony.

2) He tried to buy one bottle. The others dropped during the chase. It was obviously shoplifting. Buying one thing while shoplifting another doesn't make it not shoplifting.

The white guy and his dad--the owner of the Bakery--take off immediately. Just gone the next day. A protest over the events erupts the next day as well.

I would, too, for personal safety.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

An opinion cannot be libelous and, regardless, they did provide evidence to support such an opinion.

Not opinion

Yes, opinion.

it's a verifiable statement

How would it possibly be "verifiable" if I think you are a racist, other than for me to provide examples of things you've said or done that I interpreted to be racist, which axiomatically makes it my opinion and not a statement of independently verifiable fact?

I saw you spit on the ground after two black kids walked past you; I heard you shout out "Nigger" while sitting in your car at a stoplight; I saw you deliberately walk across the street to avoid three young black kids walking toward you; I heard from five different friends of mine--three of them black--that you had physically pushed them aside at the hospital and demanded that the nurse attend to your needs over theirs, saying, and I quote, "These people aren't sick! I am sick!"

"'These people"!?

Now, as you've probably guessed, there are non-racist explanations for all of those isolated incidents. You had been chewing tobacco all day and I just didn't see you spitting before, so the time I did happen to see you spit was just purely coincidental. When you shouted "Nigger" at the stoplight, you had been singing along to one of your favorite NWA songs, only it cut out and all I heard was the "Niggah" part. You walked across the street because you were going to a store on that side; it had nothing to do with anyone coming toward you. My five friends at the hospital weren't sick--they were just there to see another friend who was--and unknown to any of them, you had been projectile vomiting all morning, barely made it to the hospital and had been sitting there for hours badly in need of care.

When you "pushed" some aside, it was actually you almost fainting and falling into them and what you meant by "these people" was "these kids."

That's your side of all of those events.

Now, I can either believe you, or not. You could easily be lying about all of those instances, or not. I can't possibly know--and you can't possibly verify--any of it, which is why it is my OPINION.

and they didn't verify it.

You need to actually read a thread before jumping in midstream, but here it is again from Oberlin's summary judgement petition:

Despite its storied history, some members of the Oberlin community viewed the Gibson family, particularly Allyn D. Gibson ("Allyn Jr.") the son and grandson of Plaintiffs David Gibson and Allyn W. Gibson, respectively--as racist. (Ex. (1G & EL of Allyn Jr. Dep., attached hereto as Exhibit 3.4) Additionally, the Bakery had adopted an "us versus them" mentality toward Oberlin College students, a major customer group. (Compl. 1176.) Allyn Jr.--a frequent poster on social media often attacked "entitled" Oberlin students, contending that the Bakery's relationship with Oberlin College students had devolved to the point where he did not trust "about 85% of the students" who stepped foot inside the store (Ex. CC of Allyn Jr. Dep., attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) Before long, some non-white students reported that they had been treated poorly and regarded with suspicion while inside the Bakery. (See Aug. 13, 2014 Yelp Review by Mimi F., Ex. B to Snyder Aff.) These feelings of distrust between Gibson's Bakery and its customers continued through the fall of 2016, by which point the annual revenues of Gibson's Bakery had steadily declined by approximately 15% since 2013. (Damage Report — Economic Damages Relating to Lost Profits, by Plaintiffs' expert, Frank J. Monaco, at p. 10, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Allyn Jr. violently assaults an unarmed Oberlin College student.

The fractured relationship between Gibson's Bakery and Oberlin College students reached a crescendo on November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election. Just before 5 p.m. on November 9, Allyn Jr., who is white, violently attacked Jonathan Aladin, an unarmed black Oberlin College student, according to multiple witness accounts. (See Witness Statements of Nicole Baxter-Green, Ruben Perry, Ana Goelzer, and Scott Medwid, Ex. C to Snyder Aff.). Allyn Jr. suspected Mr. Aladin of attempting to pay for a bottle of wine with a fake ID and trying to steal two other bottles of wine. (See Oberlin Police Dept. Offense Report of Incident No. 16-00621 (the "Police Report"), p. 2, Ex. E to Snyder Aff.) Allyn Jr. put Mr. Aladin into a chokehold and repeatedly tackled Mr. Aladin as Allyn Jr. pursued him into Tappan Square while he attempted to -flee in front of many shocked witnesses. (Witness Statements of Nicole BaxterGreen, Ruben Perry, Ana Goelzer, and Scott Medwid, Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Witness Statement of Eli Forster, which is attached as Ex. F to the Affidavit of Meredith Raimondo ("Raimondo Aff.").5) Two of Mr. Aladin's friends—black female Oberlin College students—soon intervened and, after telling Allyn Jr. to let him go, tried to pry Allyn Jr. off Mr. Aladin. (Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Witness Statement of Eli Ferster, Ex. F to Raimondo Aff.)

Oberlin police officers arrived and arrested Mr. Aladin and his two friends, but did not arrest Allyn Jr. (Police Report, p. 2, Ex. E to Snyder Aff; Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Ptl. Feuerstein Dep.6 at 52:19-23.) According to David Gibson, Allyn Jr.'s father and a storeowner, shortly after these arrests, three Oberlin College students approached him in the Bakery and informed him that they intended to make their outrage as to Allyn Jr.'s. assault known. (D. Gibson Dep. at 123:25-126:1.)

And here is the argument restated in the combined reply brief (emphasis mine):

Some faculty, staff and students associated with Oberlin College think the Plaintiffs are racists. Others do not-for example, current Oberlin College employees Vicky Gaines, Dr. Robert Shannon, and Leslie Lubinski. (V. Gaines Dep. 9 at 174: 11-17; Shannon Dep. 1 0 at 16: 11- 14; Lubinski Dep. 11 at 11:21-12: 15 .) There are clearly differing opinions in the community as to whether Plaintiffs are racist. Plaintiffs, however, want to hold Defendants accountable for the opinions of community members with whom they disagree, regardless of whether the speaker was empowered to speak on behalf of Oberlin College. But it is undisputed that Defendants have not offered any opinion, or made any statements, about whether Plaintiffs are racist. Fortunately, the law does not allow for such an outcome.

This is why whether someone is a racist is not "objectively capable of proof or is proof." Wampler, 93 Ohio St.3d at 129 (quotation and citation omitted). As demonstrated in the depositions taken throughout this case, there is a wide difference of opinion in the Oberlin community as to how Plaintiffs treat their customers. The Ohio Constitution and Ohio law permit the lawful expression of these opinions. (See Oberlin College's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Oberlin MSJ" )1 2, at Section IV(A).) These are the same protections that enable Allyn Jr. to make offensive, but protected comments like " most black people around [this] area suck" and that he believes when he uses the term "racist," it is not defamatory; but when the protestors do, it is defamatory. (Ex. G to the Affidavit of Cary M. Snyder 1 3 ("Snyder Aff."); Allyn Jr. Dep. at462:19-463:17.)

Even Plaintiffs and their purported character witnesses agree that whether someone is racist and whether someone believes that they have been a victim of racism-are matters of opinion. (Patmon Dep . at 23:16-22, 104:7-15; E. Gaines Dep. at 19:23-20:10; V. Gaines Dep . at 76:25-77: 1 0.). David Gibson conceded that at least some of the protestors legitimately expressed their opinions about the Bakery treating people of color differently. (0. Gibson Dep. at 463:23- 464:4.) Li kew ise, Allyn W. Gibson agreed that individuals are entitled to their opinion regarding his business and that "some people are legitimate in their feeling“ that Plaintiffs are racists. (Allyn W. Gibson Dep . at 51 2:7- 1 6, 643:14-20.)

That alone concedes the point.

So what is it that Gibson's lawyers were actually after? The brief continues:

The statement that Plaintiffs are racist is a matter of opinion and non-actionable. And because Defendants never expressed an opinion on the matter , they cannot be liable for defamation or the divergent personal opinions expressed by others simply because Plaintiffs disagree with the content.

B. Defendants did not "aid or abet" the defamatory statements of the protestors.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants cannot be liable for the actions of its students. (Pis.' Opp. at 39.) Because Plaintiffs cannot identify any statements that Defendants actually published during the protests, they have manufactured a theory that Defendants should be liable for "aiding and abetting" the protestors. Plaintiffs identify a number of things that Defendants allegedly did in an attempt to argue that Defendants "aided and abetted" the protestors, such as providing refreshments and gloves to student protestors standing outside. None of the support provided by Defendants constitute " aiding and abetting" the protestors because they are not " positive acts" in furtherance of publishing defamatory statements. See Cooke v. United Dairy).

So you're quite wrong and even the Gibson's conceded the fact that racism is purely a matter of opinion.

More importantly, however, is this:

Completely irrelevant to the libel. And if you think there was such a clear injustice there, golly, too bad you weren't their lawyer

The smug stupidity of the "well the court concluded otherwise therefore your arguments and Oberlin's arguments are wrong" really needs to stop. Courts are not infallible institutions and Juries, in particular, are not omniscient entities. That's precisely why we have an appeals process.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's the police body cam footage. At the 14 minute point, the cop walks into the store following Dave Gibson describing what he thought happened (along with another employee).

Go to what Gibson first says at the 14:31 mark. I'm using both the transcript and then going back to transcribing sections that the transcript gets wrong and adding brackets for clarity for those who won't watch it themselves:

Gibson: I was kinda turned. I'm shopping, [Allyn] called me and I came, and as I was coming up the aisle, and I saw them--these two things [the wine bottles] came out--and I saw them hit the floor at just that time, because, he had run from Alan back here and I was coming this way and that's where they, he dropped those and that's where they met.

Note the cop evidently knows Dave well and calls him by his first name throughout. Dave is very intent on the officer taking the bottles and dusting them for prints, but the cop is not interested, he just wants a receipt.

You can't see the labels on the wine, but judging from the store's merchandise in general, we're probably talking about ten bucks a bottle at most.

Dave is already concerned about how the students are responding to what happened and notes at about the 14:20 mark the two bottles that Aladin "dropped":

Gibson: And that's where they, he dropped those, and that's where [Aladin and Allyn] met.
Cop: Okay
Gibson: But those are the two bottles if you need those for evidence
Cop: if you could write me off or print me everything for the models, um...
Gibson: I don't know, can you, do you need fingerprints on those
Cop: No, we're not going to need...
Gibson: Because you've got an awful lot of students that are claiming otherwise. They saw it completely differently, as I hear them. That [Aladin] did nothing.

This is at the 15:14 mark. Gibson sighs wearily and there is a small pause then the cop says (assuringly and emphasis mine):

Cop: We're not going off of what they're saying. We're charging him with robbery, um, so...
Gibson (evidently referring to the students): They're gonna trash us.
Cop: Yeah

Gibson then goes into how he and Allyn have travel plans (Allyn's overseas, no less) and the cop says it will take some time for the arraignment because they're charging Aladin with a felony robbery charge:

Cop: I mean by the time he gets, they get arraigned, um, he's got, he's gonna get charged with the robbery, that's a felony.

They are literally standing over the two (intact) bottles that could not possibly be worth more than $1,000 and never left the building--never crossed the threshold past the cash registers--and the cop is assuring the (white) owner that they are going to charge the 17 year old college student with felony robbery, so don't worry about the crowd, or your travel plans, the kid's fucked for not actually stealing anything, have a great trip.

Again, Gibson raises the spectre of how "they" are going to see things and the cop says (16:22):

Cop: Well they see it through their eyes. I mean, I can't control how they...

And then Gibson sighs again and launches back into the story, only NOW he adds little embellishments (16:30 mark):

Gibson: I turned, he called for me, "Dad," he screamed, and so I came up and the guy's running back, after he'd, uh, pushed off of Alan

Follow? Gibson's repeated concerns are about what the students are going to say, the cop says yeah, they will say what they're going to say, I can't control that, so then Gibson's story includes his son screaming for his father and that now Aladin had physically accosted his son ("pushed off of Alan"), even though seconds after embellishing the story he concedes he didn't see it (16:40 mark):

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.

So, already a new narrative is being formed in the moment by the father and in direct response to his worries about how the students (aka, the blacks) are going to paint things.

This is at the 17:47 mark (just after Gibson tells the cop that he too had been outside pulling another "African-American, you know" off of Allyn, who apparently left the scene, the implication being that there was a mob of black kids randomly beating up his poor 32 year old son, who supposedly was a martial arts expert):

Gibson: I'm just ws going to pick up a couple of students for stealing wine, and Allyn stopped them at the door and, and [Aladin] rushed back here to throw [the bottles] out of his coat. I was coming up the other way. All the students saw it differently though.

At which point another employee (a black guy) comes up and Gibson says to him:

Gibson: They're all making these stories up, Buddy.
Buddy: Why would we have to lie? What do we have to lie about, you know what I mean?
Gibson: All the students are saying stuff.
Buddy: Why would we have to, because we want to make a student look bad? Yeah, that's why we're in business, yeah.
Gibson: Like we want to even go through this?
Buddy: Right.

Then at the 18:48 mark, the cop is asking another employee (white guy) who was behind the counter and had a full view of everything, what he saw and the story changes again:

Cop: Did you see or hear anything
Guy: Oh yeah I heard I heard a commotion, but, I thought there was somebody just joking around, but they would get louder and then I caught on that it wasn't, and the next thing I know, I saw the young gentleman, run back here
Gibson: And I came up from the back
Guy: And he went this way back here and they--he grabbed on to him--and that's when all that stuff got messed up.

Following? Now the story is that Allyn chased Aladin back down the aisle (further into the store), physically grabbed Aladin violently enough to cause stuff to fly off the shelves, while Dave Gibsons is supposedly coming up the aisle toward them.

No mention of Aladin taking a free moment--as Dave had described it--to deliberately (and evidently carefully, since neither one shattered) drop the bottles he supposedly had under his shirt.

Aladin takes off back into the store and Allyn grabs on to him and shit goes flying.

Guy: And then he said, uh, the young gentleman said, or your son said, "I'm going to call the police" and he says, "Go ahead! Do me a favor. Call the police!" And things kind of settle down and then he took off. And that's what I saw.

A bit of "ok" and the like from the cop and the Guy says "Sorry" for (evidently because it contradicted what Gibson had previously said) and then Gibson chimes in at the 19:25 mark:

Gibson: And I was coming up that way as he called and that's where I kind of came up in between.

The cop says ok again and starts to leave, when Dave says to the Guy behind the counter at the 19:36 mark:

Gibson: All the students saw it very different. They're saying Allyn was abusing him and
Guy: Oh my...all I heard was, I mean, someone was saying, "Give me my stuff." [he repeats] "Give me my stuff."
Gibson: That...was Alan telling him to give it to him.
Guy: Give him back the stuff, yeah and, he obviously didn't do it, 'cause [points to back of store] he...
Cop: [interrupts] Dumped it back there?
Guy: Yeah.

If you watch that sequence, you can clearly see the employee take his cue off of what Dave says. First he says that he heard someone (presumably he knew Allyn's voice), someone say, "Give me my stuff." He repeats it: "Give me my stuff."

Gibson then says that was Allyn saying it, the employee looks at Dave (like he's been caught by the principal) and then nods and looks quickly back at the cop and corrects himself, to "Give him back the stuff." From "my" stuff (twice) to "the" stuff, in concurrence with what his boss just said, in spite of the fact that Dave was nowhere near where that took place. That was before Aladin ran back into the store.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's the Judge's dismissal of Oberlin's summary judgement petition. The arguments are ridiculous and circular, but with regard to verifiability, it hinges primarily on this statement:

In this Court's view, a "pattern of racial discrimination" and "a long account of racial discrimination" are synonymous and plausibly verifiable.

How? The Judge doesn't say. He starts the question of verifiability by noting the language of the flyer; in particular the phrase, "Long account of racial profiling and discrimination" suggesting that the publisher (emphasis mine) has "knowledge of a documented past history of such activity."

Iow, he is defining "account"--using a "noted synonym" from Webster's as meaning "an established record"--to mean a strictly documented past history.

He then sets the standard of verification as: "the method of verification must be plausible" and that's how he gets to:

In this Court's view, a "pattern of racial discrimination" and "a long account of racial discrimination" are synonymous and plausibly verifiable.

But the worst of the arguments has to be:

Because this flyer sought to inform and rally the reader to act, this Court finds that the reasonable reader would be less inclined to believe that the statements were opinions rather than fact.

So, there evidently is no actual reason to be employed by a "reasonable reader." In Ohio.

ETA: Regardless, this is what the students wrote, not the College. So that all hinges entirely on the "aiding and abetting" argument, which I'll get to later (real life intrudes).

 

[Trausti]

Here's the Judge's dismissal of Oberlin's summary judgement petition. The arguments are ridiculous and circular, but with regard to verifiability, it hinges primarily on this statement:



How? The Judge doesn't say. He starts the question of verifiability by noting the language of the flyer; in particular the phrase, "Long account of racial profiling and discrimination" suggesting that the publisher (emphasis mine) has "knowledge of a documented past history of such activity."

Iow, he is defining "account"--using a "noted synonym" from Webster's as meaning "an established record"--to mean a strictly documented past history.

He then sets the standard of verification as: "the method of verification must be plausible" and that's how he gets to:



But the worst of the arguments has to be:

Because this flyer sought to inform and rally the reader to act, this Court finds that the reasonable reader would be less inclined to believe that the statements were opinions rather than fact.

So, there evidently is no actual reason to be employed by a "reasonable reader." In Ohio.

This was a summary judgment motion. The judge did not decide the case. On these motions fact disputes are viewed in a light favorable to the opposing party. If there can be more than one interpretation, it goes to the jury.