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

[blastula]

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?

It the statement just said "racist" it would be a much weaker case, but the "LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION" (you know, only the fucking part I quoted) does make it verifiable. Same goes for "Gibson's has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment" in the Senate resolution

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:

You need to realize that this thread is not the only source of information for this case. Nothing you quoted refutes what I've said.

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.

Right, because if only this court were aware of your bottomless bucket of one weird legal tricks that they never knew about, they would totally agree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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).

"Racist" is an opinion and not actionable. However, this is alleged behavior--something that can be established as true or false. A claim that such behavior existed when it didn't is therefore libel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Still harping on the dollar value when I've already shown that's not the only thing that can make it a felony.

You're also basically proving they were shoplifting. They got caught. You want them to escape justice anyway.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, before getting further into the summary judgement dismissal, here's the police report. Compare and contrast it to the body cam footage/transcript I presented previously. The "Guy" behind the counter is evidently named Brent Gingery. I have emphasized discrepancies between the actual account from the body cam and what is reported, but also discrepancies within the actual official report:

The reporting officer then spoke with Allyn Gibson, his father David Gibson, and another employee of the store identified as Brent Gingery. The reporting officer first spoke with Allyn who stated that on this date, a black male subject later identified as Jonathan Aladin, attempted to conceal two bottles of wine under his shirt. Allyn stated he advised Aladin that he knew he had the concealed items and told Aladin not to leave because he was contacting the police. Allyn stated Aladin attempted to leave the store so Allyn took out his phone and attempted to take a picture of Aladin and that's when Aladin slapped Allyn's hand and phone and caused it to strike Allyn in the face. Allyn stated Aladin began to run to the back of the store throwing the two bottles of wine on the floor.

"Throwing" not "dropping," as Dave said in the body cam footage--twice--that I posted previously (repeated here):

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.

And then again:

Gibson: And that's where they, he dropped those, and that's where [Aladin and Allyn] met.
Cop: Okay

It's not until he tells the story for a third time that it becomes "throw" and now it's "out of his coat" (not "from under his shirt"):

Gibson: I'm just wsa 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.

Keep in mind that the sequence of events, as well. They are in the front of the store; Allyn--evidently not behind the counter--confronts Aladin; Aladin slaps his phone, which supposedly hits Allyn; Aladin runs to the back of the store evidently throwing the bottles to the floor as he is running.

Allyn stated at this point he attempted to detain Aladin, but Aladin became violent and began grabbing and hitting Allyn. Allyn stated at this point he yelled for his father who was in the back room of the store and for someone to call the police.

His father is "in the back room of the store" and Allyn yells for someone to call the police. This is not mentioned by anyone but Allyn.

Allyn stated after a few seconds his father David came out and attempted to keep Aladin from hitting Allyn.

Contradicts Dave's story. Dave is not in a "back room" and supposedly comes forward down the aisle before Aladin drops (not throws, drops) the two bottles. Dave never mentions that he also physically intervened.

Allyn stated he never threw a punch at Aladin and just kept attempting to grab him to keep him from hitting him and leaving the store. Allyn stated at some point Aladin was able to get away from Allyn and was able to leave the store

Contradicts Brent's story that there was a de-escalation and that's when Aladin started to leave, not as Allyn implies (that he--and his father, presumaby--had physical control over Aladin, but that he "was able to get away from Allyn and was able to leave the store").

From the body cam:

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.

Keep in mind "things kind of settle down and then he took off. And that's what I saw."

and make it across the street from the store with the two females that were with Aladin in the store.

Neither Dave nor Brent mention anything about two females having been "with Aladin in the store."

Allyn stated once they were across the street from the store, he again attempted to detain Aladin but again Aladin became violent knocking Allyn to the ground and began punching Allyn again.

See the narrative? The implication is that Aladin somehow broke free of Allyn's (and his father's) restraint and somehow managed to leave the store--as if he violently broke free and ran--with the two girls. Once "they were across the street." But that's not how it happened.

Regardless, Allyn stated that "once they were across the street from the store, he again attempted to detain Aladin." Iow, he attacked him and Aladin defended himself.

Allyn stated once he was on the ground the two females also began punching and kicking Allyn in the head, face and body. Allyn stated at one point, Aladin stated, "I'm going to kill you."

This is a picture of the kids:



This is a picture of Allyn and his father Dave (from the police body cam footage):



I couldn't find any others of Allyn Jr, but judging from Dave's size and stature--and that Allyn is supposedly trained in martial arts and is 32 years old--it's hard to imagine he was somehow bested by a skinny 19 year old college student and the two even smaller girls with glasses. Most likely what happened was Allyn tackled Aladin; Aladin defended himself as best he could; the two girls reacted and tried to get Allyn off of Aladin and that's when the cops showed up.

All the girls would have seen is Aladin walking out of the store and crossing the street and then Allyn running out and jumping him.

But stop to consider the idea that they were supposedly all master criminals in on the shoplifting master plan and were--as Allyn claims--in the store with Aladin. That would have necessarily meant they were, what, casing the joint and then when Aladin entered, they--knowing he was about to try to steal wine, while at the same time inexplicably purchase a bottle with a fake ID--left before any crime had taken place in order to be already outside when Aladin and then Allyn came out.

Iow, they--the master criminals--would have seen first Aladin come out (which would imply their crime of the century worked) only to then see Allyn run out after Aladin, meaning their crime had definitely NOT worked.

What do criminals generally do when their crime blows up? They run. Why? Because they're guilty and they know if they stick around they risk being arrested.

What do these girls do? Do they freak out and get the fuck out of there when suddenly it all went south? No. Exactly the opposite. They put themselves in further danger of being arrested by helping their alleged accomplice!

The report continues:

Allyn stated the next thing he knew officers were on scene and pulling the individuals off of him.

Meaning the two little girls and the skinny 19 year old college kids.

Allyn had several abrasions and minor injuries including what appeared to be a swollen lip, abrasions to his arms and wrists and a small cut on his neck.

And the kids? What, no mention of their injuries? That poor 32 year old martial arts expert! Being so severely beaten by pencil-necked-geeks.

Allyn later told Sgt. Ortiz that Aladin was going to attempt to purchase a bottle of wine (in addition to the two bottles concealed under his shirt) but appeared to be too young to purchase alcohol. A counterfeit South Carolina identification card and a credit card, both bearing Aladin's name, were turned over to Sgt. Ortiz at the scene by an employee of Gibson's.

So, let's break this plan down. For the official story to make any sense at all, the three master-criminals had to make something like the following plan:

1. The two girls will be in the store presumably as a distraction, so that Aladin can hide two bottles of wine in his shirt somehow
2. Instead of the two girls making a commotion/distraction so that Aladin could just easily walk out of the store with the two bottles he already has, the girls will first leave the store and go across the street and then Aladin will try to buy a third bottle with his fake ID, thereby risking not only being caught with a fake ID, but also spending significant time at the counter thereby increasing the risk of being detected trying to hide two other bottles inside his shirt.

These are profoundly stupid college students. Especially since, evidently the two girls didn't even do their supposed job right to distract from Aladin inexplicably hiding two bottles of wine in his shirt somehow, because Allyn supposedly saw that he had hidden them. But look at the kid's picture again. Look how skinny he is. Where could he have possibly hidden two bottles of wine under a shirt?

The only way I can think of to try to hide two bottles of wine in a shirt would be up each sleeve. That would be the most logical way. The long sleeves billow out just enough to hide the bottles and you'd have two hands to hold them in place.

And I sure as shit wouldn't then try to buy a third bottle even if I didn't think of the sleeve trick. How in the world do you try to conceal two bottles of wine merely "under" your shirt, let alone run with them AND decide to buy a third one--with a fake ID--and not exponentially risk being caught?

The report continues:

After speaking with Allyn, the reporting officer then spoke with Allyn's father, David Gibson.

So we know now that the "reporting officer" is in fact the cop with the body cam, so the stories he was told that I transcribed previously should match, but they do not.

David stated he was in the back room of the store when he heard Allyn yelling for him.

False. He did not state he was in the "back room of the store." He said he was in a back aisle "shopping" no less.

David stated when he exited the back room, he saw the male identified earlier as Aladin, running toward David in the back of the store. David stated he observed Aladin remove the two bottles of wine from under his shirt and throw them to the ground on the floor in the store.

First, "From under his shirt"? When did David say that? He said "from out of his coat." But more importantly, read the first part of the statement again:

Allyn who stated that on this date, a black male subject later identified as Jonathan Aladin, attempted to conceal two bottles of wine under his shirt. Allyn stated he advised Aladin that he knew he had the concealed items and told Aladin not to leave because he was contacting the police. Allyn stated Aladin attempted to leave the store so Allyn took out his phone and attempted to take a picture of Aladin and that's when Aladin slapped Allyn's hand and phone and caused it to strike Allyn in the face. Allyn stated Aladin began to run to the back of the store throwing the two bottles of wine on the floor. Allyn stated at this point he attempted to detain Aladin, but Aladin became violent and began grabbing and hitting Allyn. Allyn stated at this point he yelled for his father who was in the back room of the store and for someone to call the police.

According to Allyn, the sequence of events is:

1. Allyn confronts Aladin and tells him not to leave, he's calling the police.
2. Aladin attempts to leave.
3. Phone slap.
4. Aladin inexplicably runs back into the store
5. He throws the bottles of wine to the floor (but somehow does not break either).
6. Allyn chases after him and tries to detain him, but Aladin "became violent."
7. At that point Allyn yells for dad.

Dave's version--from the official report--however, is:

1. David was in the back room of the store when he heard Allyn yelling for him.
2. He exited the back room, and saw Aladin running toward him in the back of the store.
3. He "observed Aladin remove the two bottles of wine from under his shirt and throw them to the ground on the floor in the store."

Let's isolate the discrepancies in the official report.

Allyn's version:

1. Aladin runs back into the store
2. He throws the bottles of wine to the floor
3. Allyn chases after him and tries to detain him, but Aladin "became violent."
4. At that point Allyn yells for dad.

Dave's version:

1. David was in the back room of the store when he heard Allyn yelling for him.
2. He exited the back room, and saw Aladin running toward him in the back of the store.
3. He "observed Aladin remove the two bottles of wine from under his shirt and throw them to the ground on the floor in the store."

And remember, again, Dave in the body cam footage says only that Aladin "dropped" the bottles, not that he threw them and not that he threw them while running away, either. In the official report, however, both Dave and Allyn say that Aladin threw the bottles to the floor and contradict each other's stories in regard to sequence of events. In the same freaking report!

The report continues:

David stated he then saw Allyn attempt to detain Aladin and Aladin began pushing Allyn telling him not to touch him. David stated at one point Aladin pushed Allyn into one of the shelves knocking several items off the shelf. David stated at this time he attempted to intervene and asked Aladin to stop. David stated Aladin grabbed David's hand, bent back several of his fingers and then ran out of the store.

??? What? When? When did David say any of that? Certainly not in any of the body cam footage. Recall what Brent said:

[T]hings kind of settle down and then he took off. And that's what I saw.

No mention of trying to break anyone's fingers and then running out of the store! You'd think that would be a key event to have witnessed and mentioned.

David stated he and Allyn pursued Aladin

They both did? I don't recall that either from the body cam.

and Allyn was able to catch up to him across the street where another struggle ensued and both Allyn and Aladin ended up on the ground with Allyn on his back and Aladin on top of Allyn.

That's a pretty severe omission of details as to exactly how Aladin "ended up" on top of Allyn, if in fact David had witnessed it all.

David stated he then saw two black females begin punching and kicking Allyn and that's when the police showed up and began diffusing the situation the best they could. David stated one of the females was already in custody and the other female was still at the scene and David pointed her out to officers.

After speaking with Allyn and David, the reporting officer then spoke with the cashier that was working the counter at the time of the incident and he was identified as Brent Gingery. Gingery confirmed the facts of the incident just as Allyn and David had with little else to add in the way of any new facts.

WHAT!? He most certainly did not! That's the full extent of the Guy behind the counter's inclusion in the report. He corroborated everything Allyn and David said, you know, more or less (in spite of the fact that not even Allyn and David's stories match).

It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn't do anything wrong.

Yeah, you know, but "they see it through their eyes" and "we're not going off of what they're saying" and all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I couldn't find any others of Allyn Jr, but judging from Dave's size and stature--and that Allyn is supposedly trained in martial arts and is 32 years old--it's hard to imagine he was somehow bested by a skinny 19 year old college student and the two even smaller girls with glasses. Most likely what happened was Allyn tackled Aladin; Aladin defended himself as best he could; the two girls reacted and tried to get Allyn off of Aladin and that's when the cops showed up.

Different context, same problem--you seem to think that the powerful entity in a conflict is in the wrong. His combat capability says absolutely nothing about whether his actions were legal or not. And note that a blood-choke can knock you out but so long as it isn't prolonged it's harmless. (A breath-choke can cause harm, though.)

All the girls would have seen is Aladin walking out of the store and crossing the street and then Allyn running out and jumping him.

Doesn't matter--as I've already pointed out, when you jump into someone else's fight you get the status of the person you're defending. If they were not permitted to use force then neither are you. Whether you know the situation or not is pretty much irrelevant.

Allyn had several abrasions and minor injuries including what appeared to be a swollen lip, abrasions to his arms and wrists and a small cut on his neck.

And the kids? What, no mention of their injuries? That poor 32 year old martial arts expert! Being so severely beaten by pencil-necked-geeks.

Because he was trying to detain, not trying to harm.


As for your attempts to reconstruct the crime--doesn't it occur to you that the jury had a much better picture of the sequence of events and isn't buying your attempt to whitewash the shoplifter?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Still harping on the dollar value when I've already shown that's not the only thing that can make it a felony.

No, you did not "show" that. You alleged that you had found something in regard to the elderly and then mentioned you didn't know how old the owner of the store is, which makes no difference. The kid would not be stealing personal possessions from an old person in the case of alleged shoplifting.

Here is a summary of the Ohio rules of misdeameanor and felony theft:

Misdemeanor of the First Degree Theft

Theft is a misdemeanor of the first degree in Ohio when the value of property or services stolen is less than $1,000. (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2913.02(B)(2).)

The punishment for a misdemeanor of the first degree in Ohio is a term of imprisonment of not more than 180 days, a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. ( § 2929.24(A)(1), § 2929.28(A)(2).)

Felony of the Fifth Degree Theft

Theft is a felony of the fifth degree in Ohio when one of the following conditions exists:

• the value of property or services stolen is more than $1,000, but less than $7,500
• the property is a credit/debt card, check, or other negotiable instrument
• the property is a vehicle license plate or temporary placard, a blank vehicle title form, or a blank form for a driver's license. ( § 2913.02(B)(2), § 2913.71.)

The punishment for a felony of the fifth degree in Ohio includes a prison term ranging from six to 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500. ( § 2929.14(A), § 2929.18(A)(3).)

They go up from there, but not a one of them says anything about the elderly.

You're also basically proving they were shoplifting.

Not "they," just Aladin was accused and he was accused by Allyn in the store supposedly, but Aladin never crossed the threshold (i.e., left the store), therefore it can only be, at best, attempted shoplifting.

They got caught.

Allegedly and again only he (Aladin) was accused and then only by Allyn.

You want them to escape justice anyway.

You don't understand what "justice" entails. You have badly misconstrued the facts in the case, constantly referring to "they" when only one person allegedly hid wine somehow under his shirt and then did not actually steal it.

If I don't leave the store, then I haven't actually stolen anything yet, regardless of what's under my shirt or in my basket or down my pants, etc. You could accuse me of attempted shoplifting, I guess, but again, anything less than $1,000 in Ohio is a misdemeanor, not a felony. So how, exactly, were the police/DA justified in charging them with felony robbery?

It's not a fucking bank. It's a shitty little grocery store and the wine he supposedly was somehow trying to both steal AND pay for at the same time never left the shop (and didn't break, so no property ever left the store).

Here are the charges for felony robbery (and aggravated felony robbery):

Aggravated Robbery (Section 2911.01): It's a first degree felony to do any of the following while attempting to commit or committing a theft offense, or fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense:

Have a deadly weapon and either show the weapon or use it;
Have a dangerous ordnance; or
Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another.

Robbery (Section 2911.02):

It's a second degree felony to have a deadly weapon or inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another while committing or attempting to commit a theft offense, or fleeing after the offense.

It's a third degree felony to use or threaten the immediate use of force against another while committing or attempting to commit a theft offense, or fleeing after the offense.

Here's the problem. No offense actually took place. At best, it would only be an attempted offense, which is likely why the DA lowered the charges to a misdemeanor to begin with. But then there's still the issue of requiring that inexplicable statement in the plea agreement.

Judging from the penalties for felony aggravated robbery, we can see why they all signed:

Conviction under Ohio's robbery laws can result in imprisonment and fines:

First degree felony: prison term of 3 to 11 years and fines not exceeding $20,000.
Second degree felony: prison term of 2 to 8 years and fines not exceeding $15,000.
Third degree felony: prison term of 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, or 36 months and fines not exceeding $10,000.

So we're still stuck with the reason why the DA forced all three kids to sign a statement attesting to their own opinions about Gibson's being racists and, even more bizarrely, affirming that Gibson's was only acting to stop an underrage sale.

No mention of shoplifting; no mention of robbery. Indeed, at least according to the Ohio Chronicle Aladin's plea agreement states that he:

pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of attempted theft, aggravated trespassing and underage purchase of alcohol.

While the two girls:

pleaded guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespassing.

Why in the world were the two girls charged with anything at all, since no one said--not David Gibson, not Brent Gingery, not Allyn Gibson, that I can find--that they had anything to do with Aladin's actions in the store?

And, most importantly of all, why weren't any of them charged with assault on Allyn? Aggravated trespass in Ohio consists of:

2911.211 Aggravated trespass.

(A) No person shall enter or remain on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit on that land or those premises a misdemeanor, the elements of which involve causing physical harm to another person or causing another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to him.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated trespass, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Not a one of them--but particularly not the two girls--entered or remained on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit physical harm or to cause another person to believe that they would cause physical harm. The body cam testimony of both David and Brent attest to the fact that Allyn confronted Aladin, not the other way around, and that all of the violence that ensued was the result of Allyn being the aggressor and Aladin defending himself.

At no point does anyone claim that Aladin threatened or planned on causing anyone physical harm. Brent, in fact, notes that after Allyn subdues Aladin, things calmed down and then Aladin left the premises--without any merchandise, hence the "attempted" theft plea bargain, not actual theft--and it was Allyn who then decided to chase after him, by leaving the premises.

The girls were already outside of the premises and had no part in any of the events that subsequently transpired in the moment between Allyn and Aladin inside the store. So how were they in any way charged with either attempted theft or aggravated trespass? The police report doesn't even mention them being in the store or anything about them helping Aladin to allegedly hide the bottles or any communications between the three of them, such that the police or DA could in any way prove that they were all accomplices, or the like.

Their only possible crime would be assaulting Allyn on public land. Yet, they aren't charged with that.

So, again, why the statement? And why the fuck were these two girls either (a) charged with assault or, (b) barring that, not simply let go? From the Ohio Chronicle piece (emphasis mine):

Before the sentencing, Aladin, Lawrence and Whettstone each read statements acknowledging that Gibson was within his right to detain Aladin and that his actions were not racially motivated.

Though the two women read nearly identical statements, the lawyers representing Gibson’s sought clarification when one of the woman changed the wording – saying Gibson’s actions “may not” be racially motivated.

The lawyer representing the women, Jack Bradley, read the line of the statement for clarification: “I believe the employees of Gibson’s actions were not racially motivated. They were merely trying to prevent an underage sale.”

The women then agreed to that version of the statement and it was submitted to the judge.

But, of course, they were NOT "trying to prevent an underrage sale," they were supposedly trying to detain a shoplifter/felony robber. Right?

So, which is it? All Allyn was trying to do was prevent an underrage sale, or he was trying to prevent a felony robbery?

In regard to the plea deal, Aladin said:

Throughout the case, Aladin maintained that he was innocent of theft and robbery, stating that the fake ID he was charged for possessing was explicit proof that he intended to purchase alcohol, an offense with far less serious potential consequences.

“The reason I was trying to avoid trial at all costs is because robbery in Ohio is a crime that has a preference for prison … that has jail time of 2–11 years,” Aladin said.
...
If these conditions are met, the students’ records will be sealed after a year.

Iow, their lives won't be forever ruined with a felony conviction (and several years in prison). Of course they are going to attest to anything the DA wants, but, again, why the fuck did the DA insist that they exonerate Gibson's of being racially motivated (one going so far as to hedge that in court) and to specify that it was all in regard to preventing an underrage sale?

According to Oberlin City Prosecutor Frank Carlson, the two female students’ cases were originally charged as misdemeanors, but Aladin was charged with robbery, a second-degree felony that could have resulted in 2 to 11 years in prison. In December, Carlson, defendants, and proprietors of Gibson’s all agreed to a plea bargain that reduced the charges to misdemeanors.

However, in a controversial turn of events, Judge Januzzi of the Municipal Court rejected their proposal, citing the severity of the charge and the court’s unwillingness to bend to possible political and economic pressures from the students and College.

“A conclusion may be drawn that the [alleged] victims of the robbery have little choice but to assent in this proposal under penalty of a permanent economic sanction,” wrote Januzzi in the trial journal, insinuating that Gibson’s was being pressured to settle the case because of economic influence wielded by the College and students.

Carlson explained that despite the rejection, the students received the same misdemeanor charges at the County Court that they had originally agreed to at Oberlin Municipal.

“I think the court felt that [Aladin] was charged with a felony, and the plea tender we made to the court was for a second-degree misdemeanor, and the judge felt that that was too much of a reduction,” Carson said.

Ok, so, if the students--i.e., the two girls--received the "same misdemeanor charges" that were originally "agreed to at Oberlin Municipal," then, again why were they charged at all with either "attempted theft" or "aggravate trespass" and no assault? And as to the Judge's change of heart about the severity somehow being tied to economic coercion to Gibson's, these changes occurred a good year after the protests, so how could that be a factor?

Regardless, somehow that got changed again back to misdemeanors, but still with no clear answer as to why the girls were charged with anything at all, let alone "attempted theft" when all Gibson's was trying to do was prevent an underrage sale and "aggravated trespass," not assault.

The Chronicle piece notes further:

For Aladin, this ending was a somber relief to a difficult year.

“Right now, I’m treasurer of the school,” he said. “I’m helping run the [Student Finance Committee]. The whole time I was thinking I could be doing this for the next two years, or I could be behind bars for the next two years. Every decision had to reflect that.”

Indeed.

I still can't find the actual statements from the kids nor their arrest reports, but I did find this from another piece in the Ohio Chronicle from the time of the original incident (emphasis mine):

Two women charged with assault were just trying to help their friend when they saw him running out of Gibson’s Bakery in November, their attorney said Wednesday following a pretrial in Oberlin Municipal Court.

Soooooo, they were NOT originally charged with either "attempted theft" or "aggravated trespass," but assault.

Aladin’s case has been forwarded to Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will’s office for review when the felony robbery charge he initially faced was dismissed by prosecutors after Oberlin Municipal Court Judge Thomas Januzzi rejected a plea deal.

Oberlin Prosecutor Frank Carlson presented a plea deal to Januzzi in which Aladin would have pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted theft, a misdemeanor, but Januzzi rejected it.

Bradley said Carlson won’t present a plea deal for the women because Januzzi rejected the deal for Aladin.

“He feels that all the students should be treated the same,” Bradley said.

Beg pardon? Why should they all be "treated the same"?

From another piece, we have Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will saying:

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.”

But apparently that's not true. The only reason they were charged along with Aladin appears to be because "all the students should be treated the same."

I can find no evidence anywhere that the girls did anything more than just be outside the store and certainly nothing that even suggests that they "acted in concert" or part of a some master "common scheme or plan." They were charged originally with misdemeanor assualt and then that somehow got trumped up into felony robbery in concert with Aladin and then in the end it all washed out to, sign our plea deal and this statment about your opinions on Gibson's as they relate to racism and what their intent was (to stop an underrage sale) and you won't go to prison or have your lives permanently ruined for one of you trying to buy one bottle of cheap ass wine with a fake ID.

All I've found so far is this that I had posted previously (emphasis mine):

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.

So, because the two of them had been in the store earlier that day--and because Prosecutors "suspect the pair knew what Aladin allegedly had planned," which is to buy one bottle of wine with a fake ID--they are somehow complicit. But we know subsequently, that it was a Judge who just randomly decided to charge them all the same, which was to drop the misdemeanor assault charges and instead charge the girls with "attempted theft" (which, even if they knew was Aladin's plan still doesn't mean they could have committed "attempted theft") and "aggravated trespass," which could not possibly apply to them, since the state knew only that they were not in the store at the time of the alleged aggravated trespass!

There's no way to slice any of this up the way it came down, except as it hinges on the statement attempting to exonerate Gibson's of racial motivation. Which means that Gibson's was in fact racially motivated.

There is no other explanation for why those three kids were charged with what they were charged with and forced to sign those statements. The Judge even concedes that much in regard to his order to charge them all together and with felonies; to ensure that the Gibson's were not being economically coerced in to any plea bargain due to racial unrest.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Racist" is an opinion and not actionable. However, this is alleged behavior--something that can be established as true or false.

I believe you are a racist. The fact that you may not be has no bearing on what I believe. You could show me your entire life history and I could still interpret everything you present to me as being an example of your racism and/or you lying about your racism.

That's why it's an OPINION.

A claim that such behavior existed when it didn't is therefore libel.

False. A claim that I BELIEVE such behavior exists cannot be libelous. In this case, the Judge evidently used the synonym of "account" to mean "a documented history" and then hinged everything on that documentation, inexplicably declaring (ironically) that Yelp reviews and numerous people's opinions presented by Oberlin did not somehow pass his own personal threshold for sufficient documentation.

Regardless, Oberlin did provide an accounting (and then some), including concessions by the Gibson's themselves (I have omitted certain citations to make it easier to read):

David Gibson believes that at least some of the protestors legitimately expressed their opinions about the Bakery treating people of color differently. (D. Gibson Deposition). Allyn Jr. agrees that "people can have different opinions about race and racism and how they are viewed and how others are viewed." (Allyn Jr. Deposition) In his view, the protestors outside his family's store exemplified racism. "I believe they looked at me as a while [sic] male and segregated me as a race, and yes, I believe that they were doing it as a racist — in a racist manner." He has also expressed his opinion by calling at least one person a "racist" in a Facebook comment. And yet, in Allyn Jr.'s mind, when he uses the term "racist," it is not defamatory; but when the protestors use it is defamatory. (Allyn Jr. Deposition) The law safeguards Allyn Jr.'s right to express his opinions and hold this double standard. In sum, the Flyer expresses a non-verifiable statement of opinion not actionable as libel.
...
The Flyer also invites anyone who has "been victimized by this establishment in any capacity. . . to stand with us in support of our community member." Hundreds of people then did join in the protests outside of Gibson's Bakery. And some of those present at the protests expressed that they had personally received "racist" treatment while in Gibson's Bakery. Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to dispute that some or all of the protestors believed they, or those they know, had been "victimized" by Gibson's Bakery because neither Plaintiffs nor their character witnesses have spoken with any of the protestors about their personal experiences inside the Bakery.
...
As noted above, the Gibson family and their Bakery were not unfamiliar with accusations that they were racist—indeed, those accusations had persisted for years. (Ex. GG & LL of Allyn Jr. Dep.; Aug. 13, 2014 Yelp review by Mimi F., Ex. B to Snyder Aff.) So, even if the Court finds that Oberlin College or Dean Raimondo somehow published the Flyer, its content remains protected opinion. A defendant cannot be liable for repeating matters of public knowledge that
Plaintiffs cannot prove to be false.
...
Further, the Flyer attempts to persuade readers not to buy items at Gibson's Bakery by stating: "DON'T BUY." This form of advocacy—which urges readers to pursue a course of action—can only be construed as opinion rather than objective fact. See Jorg v. Cincinnati Black United Front, 153 Ohio App.3d 258, (Defendants' letter to a newspaper designed to "help publicize their boycott" is non-defamatory).
...
The location and manner in which a statement is made influences whether the speech is fact or opinion. "[D]ifferent types of writing have. . . widely varying social conventions which signal to the reader the likelihood of a statement's being either fact or opinion." Scott, 25 Ohio. A protest, known for calls to action and invective, is the quintessential venue to express—and read or hear—opinions. See Wampler (a writing in the form of a "call to action" is protected opinion). So is the public dissemination of a flyer. Shriver v. Warman (an ordinary reader would find a flyer disseminated to the community to be stating an opinion).
...
The protests outside of Gibson's Bakery in November 2016 were no different. Plaintiff Allyn W. Gibson agrees that the Flyer advocates and encourages a particular view. (Allyn W. Gibson Deposition) Individuals who expressed an opposing view—that the Bakery had not engaged in racial discrimination— were present throughout much of the protests. Their presence contributed to the constitutionally protected free exchange of opinions, of which the Flyer was a part.

In short, the very fact that so many people showed up to the protest--not just Oberlin students, but people of the community in general--and expressed their opinions on either side of the issue of Gibson's racism alone proves that there was in fact a history of opinions of racism with regard to the store.

The judge was not only wrong, but tried to hinge the entire standard of "account" to being a synonym of account and then focused exclusively on the "documented" part of the synonym.

Regardless, the Yelp accounts, the existence and comments of protestors (on both "sides) and the testimony of the Gibson's themselves all verified the opinions expressed in the flyer.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here is a summary of eyewitness accounts that the cop on the body cam just randomly decided weren't credible ("they see what they want to see" and "we're not going off of what they say", etc):

Discrepancies between eyewitness and police reports have led to conflicting versions of the incident, but what remains abundantly clear is that the scuffle between Aladin, 19, and Gibson, the white son of store owner David Gibson, escalated quickly and had moved outside of the store to across the street when officers arrived at the scene.

According to the incident report filed by the Oberlin Police Department, Gibson thought Aladin was attempting to shoplift two bottles of wine by concealing them under his jacket when he confronted him. The report almost entirely consists of information from interviews with David and Allyn Gibson.

“Allyn stated Aladin attempted to leave the store, so Allyn took out his phone and attempted to take a picture of Aladin and that’s when Aladin slapped Allyn’s hand and phone and caused it to strike Allyn in the face,” the report reads.

However, College junior Andy Goelzer called that account “completely false” and said that “there was no conversation before Allyn attacked him.”

Instead, Goelzer said that Gibson used force immediately on Aladin, who they say was standing in line to pay instead of attempting to leave.

“He was literally just standing there, and Allyn Gibson comes running from the back of the store screaming, ‘Shoplifter!’ and grabs him,” Goelzer said. “The kid is like, ‘Get off me, I’m not doing anything.’ At this point, people in the store are starting to yell, ‘Get off him’, ‘What are you doing?'”

Both the police report and the eyewitnesses agree that Gibson then pursued Aladin to the back of the store when an altercation ensued as Gibson attempted to physically detain Aladin and two bottles of wine ended up on the floor.

The police report details that Aladin allegedly threw the bottles of wine on the floor, but eyewitnesses said that the bottles could have fallen from shelving that was knocked over during the struggle.

“They could’ve been in his shirt,” College junior Andres Gonzalez said. “They could’ve just as easily been from the aisle. A lot of the merchandise was knocked over in him pushing this guy into the aisle.”

The police report and the eyewitnesses sharply disagreed about who the aggressor was.

“Allyn stated he never threw a punch at Aladin and just kept attempting to grab him to keep him from hitting him and leaving the store,” the report reads.

In contrast, Goelzer stated that they called the police out of concern for Aladin’s safety.

“At this point, a few people in the store start running over to try to pull him off, and there’s like four people trying to pull him off and no one can manage to break him free, and he’s hitting this kid and putting him in a chokehold,” Goelzer said.

Aladin allegedly managed to break free and ran out to the sidewalk, where Goelzer stated that they saw Gibson tackle Aladin again. At this point, witnesses say Whettstone and Lawrence physically tried to free Aladin by hitting Gibson.

“They kind of rolled together — you couldn’t tell who was who,” College first-year Yue Yu said. “I [saw] the two girls start to kick onto — I couldn’t see who.”

Aladin, allegedly pursued by Gibson, then ran across the street to Tappan Square, where the struggle resumed, with Whettstone and Lawrence joining again, according to witnesses.

College junior Angie Vaaler described the fight as a “ball of people,” and College junior Jake Berstein said that it seemed like there were punches coming from both sides. At that point, police arrived at the scene and broke up the scuffle.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Another fun tidbit from the summary judgement response brief not mentioned in any of the media coverage (emphasis in original):

Plaintiffs also misrepresent the shoplifting statistics. When the arrests of all individual adults and juveniles are considered, then 20 out of the 58 individuals (greater than 33%) arrested for shoplifting or robbery at Gibson's Bakery are black. (Id. at 32:5-33:25.) In comparison, approximately 9% of the Lorain County population is African-American. (Id. at 95:7-96:4, Ex. 12 to McCloskey Dep .) In other words, the percentage of individuals arrested for shoplifting at Gibson 's Bakery is at least three times higher than the black population percentage in Lorain County. (Id. at 96:13-22.) When properly analyzed, these statistics actually fail to support Plaintiffs' assertion, namely, that the police data is evidence that the issue of Plaintiffs' racism is verifiable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, you did not "show" that. You alleged that you had found something in regard to the elderly and then mentioned you didn't know how old the owner of the store is, which makes no difference. The kid would not be stealing personal possessions from an old person in the case of alleged shoplifting.

It doesn't matter if it's their personal property or their business property. The owner is almost certainly elderly, it's a family business, therefore one of the owners of the stolen property is elderly. Felony.

Here is a summary of the Ohio rules of misdeameanor and felony theft:

Focusing on what constitues a misdemeanor is irrelevant. You should have been looking for what constitutes a felony:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/theft-offenses-in-ohio

Theft offenses will also be charged differently if the theft was from an elderly person or a disabled adult.

Theft from an elderly person or a disabled adult is a fifth degree felony.

You're also basically proving they were shoplifting.

Not "they," just Aladin was accused and he was accused by Allyn in the store supposedly, but Aladin never crossed the threshold (i.e., left the store), therefore it can only be, at best, attempted shoplifting.

Confronting him before the crime was completed doesn't mean it wasn't completed.

Here are the charges for felony robbery (and aggravated felony robbery):

You're still determined to look at the wrong laws.

pleaded guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespassing.

Why in the world were the two girls charged with anything at all, since no one said--not David Gibson, not Brent Gingery, not Allyn Gibson, that I can find--that they had anything to do with Aladin's actions in the store?

Note: Pled. Plea deals often involve charges that have little to do with what actually happened. Simple example: Locally if you get an ordinary traffic ticket (not DUI or the like) you can take traffic school and they will demote it to a parking ticket. (You're limited in how often you can do it. The serious offender racks up points, the minor offenders don't.)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It doesn't matter if it's their personal property or their business property.

It most certainly does! Read your own source:

Theft from an elderly person

It clearly delineates the person, not the idea of stealing from a store that happens to be owned by an elderly person. That's idiotic.

Regardless, he didn't actually steal anything, which is part of the reason why it was reduced to "attempted theft."

 

[Gun Nut]

Another fun tidbit from the summary judgement response brief not mentioned in any of the media coverage (emphasis in original):

Plaintiffs also misrepresent the shoplifting statistics. When the arrests of all individual adults and juveniles are considered, then 20 out of the 58 individuals (greater than 33%) arrested for shoplifting or robbery at Gibson's Bakery are black. (Id. at 32:5-33:25.) In comparison, approximately 9% of the Lorain County population is African-American. (Id. at 95:7-96:4, Ex. 12 to McCloskey Dep .) In other words, the percentage of individuals arrested for shoplifting at Gibson 's Bakery is at least three times higher than the black population percentage in Lorain County. (Id. at 96:13-22.) When properly analyzed, these statistics actually fail to support Plaintiffs' assertion, namely, that the police data is evidence that the issue of Plaintiffs' racism is verifiable.

I hear this type of claim of racism often. "only" x% of x population is black, but x% of the affected parties are black, therefore racism. The assumption "they" would like you to have is that all people from all cultures and backgrounds are probabilisticly identical for any behavior whatsoever. I'm not buying it.
IF (IF, IF, IF!) black people statistically are more likely to commit a crime, then their numbers in a population should not be expected to be identical to the distribution of charges for a crime. Obviously.
It is circular reasoning to use arrest rates for a demographic in comparison to their population to claim that demographic's statistics are skewed due to racism... it is equally likely that the statistics simply show a difference in the demographic's behavior.
The alternative narrative is that all people of all cultures should be expected to act identically... identical to YOUR expectations... now THAT is racist.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Another fun tidbit from the summary judgement response brief not mentioned in any of the media coverage (emphasis in original):

Plaintiffs also misrepresent the shoplifting statistics. When the arrests of all individual adults and juveniles are considered, then 20 out of the 58 individuals (greater than 33%) arrested for shoplifting or robbery at Gibson's Bakery are black. (Id. at 32:5-33:25.) In comparison, approximately 9% of the Lorain County population is African-American. (Id. at 95:7-96:4, Ex. 12 to McCloskey Dep .) In other words, the percentage of individuals arrested for shoplifting at Gibson 's Bakery is at least three times higher than the black population percentage in Lorain County. (Id. at 96:13-22.) When properly analyzed, these statistics actually fail to support Plaintiffs' assertion, namely, that the police data is evidence that the issue of Plaintiffs' racism is verifiable.

I hear this type of claim of racism often. "only" x% of x population is black, but x% of the affected parties are black, therefore racism.

That's not the argument.

The assumption "they" would like you to have is that all people from all cultures and backgrounds are probabilisticly identical for any behavior whatsoever. I'm not buying it.

Then you've just affirmed Oberlin's argument (see last sentence of the quote from Oberlin's brief).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't matter if it's their personal property or their business property.

It most certainly does! Read your own source:

Theft from an elderly person

It clearly delineates the person, not the idea of stealing from a store that happens to be owned by an elderly person. That's idiotic.

Regardless, he didn't actually steal anything, which is part of the reason why it was reduced to "attempted theft."

The elderly person owns the store and thus owns the goods in it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It most certainly does! Read your own source:



It clearly delineates the person, not the idea of stealing from a store that happens to be owned by an elderly person. That's idiotic.

Regardless, he didn't actually steal anything, which is part of the reason why it was reduced to "attempted theft."

The elderly person owns the store and thus owns the goods in it.

No way in hell could it ever possibly be argued that stealing from a store owned by someone who is "elderly" constitutes "stealing from an elderly person," but if you can find a single instance in Ohio case history where a prosecutor successfully argued that "elderly person" equates to "store owned by an elderly person" I'll tip the hat.

Regardless, the fact that all three were plea bargained down from felony charges--which would have completely ruined their lives--to the lesser, sealed misdemeanor charges (and all three charged with the same "attempted theft" and "aggravated trespass," when the two girls had nothing to do with either offenses) AND the court forced them to sign and read aloud statements regarding their personal opinions on Gibson's racism (thereby affirming it is, in fact, opinion and therefore in no way libelous) and alleged noble reason for trying to protect against an underrage sale (and NOT theft, attempted or otherwise) proves that they were railroaded and that this whole thing is a white trash sham.

Recall the statement all three were forced to read aloud in court (emphasis mine):

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.”

I believe is an expression of an opinion. That's how the DA worded their statements, not the kids. We know this because one of them changed the wording when she read it aloud and Gibson's lawyers forced her lawyer to correct her with the specific wording in the statement (emphasis mine):

Before the sentencing, Aladin, Lawrence and Whettstone each read statements acknowledging that Gibson was within his right to detain Aladin and that his actions were not racially motivated.

Though the two women read nearly identical statements, the lawyers representing Gibson’s sought clarification when one of the women changed the wording – saying Gibson’s actions “may not” be racially motivated.

The lawyer representing the women, Jack Bradley, read the line of the statement for clarification: “I believe the employees of Gibson’s actions were not racially motivated. They were merely trying to prevent an underage sale.”

The women then agreed to that version of the statement and it was submitted to the judge.

There simply is no legitimate reason to force those kids into signing or reading any such statement AND Gibson's own lawyers (along with the court/DA) conclusively proved that racism is a matter of opinion by forcing the one girl to change her own opinion from "may not" to "were not," so that one ironic requirement scuttles the entire Gibson civil suit.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

 

[Gun Nut]

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

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

The reduction is not due to a belief that racism was not involved, nor was there any reduction in the amount of compensatory damages. The reduction was due to the punitive damages exceeding state maximums.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No way in hell could it ever possibly be argued that stealing from a store owned by someone who is "elderly" constitutes "stealing from an elderly person," but if you can find a single instance in Ohio case history where a prosecutor successfully argued that "elderly person" equates to "store owned by an elderly person" I'll tip the hat.

Regardless, the fact that all three were plea bargained down from felony charges--which would have completely ruined their lives--to the lesser, sealed misdemeanor charges (and all three charged with the same "attempted theft" and "aggravated trespass," when the two girls had nothing to do with either offenses) AND the court forced them to sign and read aloud statements regarding their personal opinions on Gibson's racism (thereby affirming it is, in fact, opinion and therefore in no way libelous) and alleged noble reason for trying to protect against an underrage sale (and NOT theft, attempted or otherwise) proves that they were railroaded and that this whole thing is a white trash sham.

Charging high and plea bargaining down is the usual way the criminal justice system works. It doesn't mean anything is wrong with the case.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Derec]

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

Still a lot of money. And why do you hope Gibson's (and the Gibsons as individuals) get nothing? Oberlin definitely wronged them and they did have their eyes on Gibson's property for parking lot expansion.
Gibsons deserve compensation. Oberlin deserves to take one on the chin.