City Council Votes Unanimously To Sustain Freeman

[augie47]

City Council Votes Unanimously To Sustain Freeman Firing

www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_161222.asp

[davrik]

He should have been fired long ago, especially after the Walmart incident. He was an embarrassment to all the good cops out there.

Now, maybe all the crazy talk of him just reacting to an assault by the little old Walmart greeter will go away, since the upper echelon of the CPD also thought he should be fired for the incident.

[Justin Thyme]

Now, maybe all the crazy talk of him just reacting to an assault by the little old Walmart greeter will go away,

Ya know, the one thing that really had me supporting Freeman over the Walmart incident was that people wanted to excuse the wrongdoing of the Walmart greeter because he was a little old man. Little old men don't need to be coddled. They got to be little old men because they managed to take care of themselves, regardless of their size, for long enough to become old. Regardless of whether Freeman was justified or not in pushing the greeter off of him the greeter had it coming. He got what he deserved for his actions. You may deem Freeman wrong but that doesn't make the greeter right and I'm tired of people defending the greeter. He doesn't deserve being defended. He assaulted a man. How many times has he done it, maybe even to women, and nothing came of it because he's a little old man? He needed to be stopped and I applaud Freeman for doing so. That may be the only thing Freeman ever did to deserve applause but for that he needs the proper recognition.

And no one ever found that his actions in Walmart were criminal.

[Tsavodiner]

It was a lot like watching somebody drown, and being able to do absolutely nothing about it.

I defended him through the Wal-Mart thing because we'd been through some shit together.

Not even I could have imagined the depths to which he'd sink despite the best efforts of the well-intentioned.

davrilavigne, let's sit down to beers and beers and you can tell me everything you know about the "upper escolon"[sic] of the Police Department.

Biggest Liar Pays.

[www.nooganews.com]

In all actuality, he stands a very good chance of furthering his prefessional career by applying for a position with the Red Bankistan police Department.

They are very well know for hiring officers with a history of incidents, internal affairs investigations, officers who have fronted drug sales and weapons misuse, a officer with a prior conviction of murder, and a cheif who came out of retirment just to pad his penions a we bit more.

If there ever is anything major, the whole department comes out for public relations just to get WRCB to come down the road.

Then we have the Vice-Mayor that has anger issues and yet they keep him on!

In addition, you won't really have to work in Red Bankistan, they have the traffic cameras that work for you. Just sit at a desk, type in the tag number, and wait for the victim to bring yoou $50.

It's all that easy!

[duke]

Customer Convicted For Shoving 75-Year-Old Walmart Receipt Checker
By Ben Popken, 12:54 PM on Fri Mar 14 2008
Donald Lynch, certified public accountant, was convicted of misdemeanor assault after pushing a 75-year-old Walmart greeter who wanted to check his receipt, reports The Chronicle. Lynch said the greeter tried to block him by pushing against him with his shoulder. Security tape showed the greeter flying to the floor. While an employee has no right to touch you, you also don't have a right to shove them on the floor, especially if they're septuagenarian!

consumerist.com/368007/customer-convicted-for-shoving-75+year+old-walmart-receipt-checker

Wal-Mart Greeter Case Ends With Conviction www.chronline.com/articles/2008/03/13/local_news/20080313-archive1.txt Available for a fee.
The Winlock man accused of shoving down a Wal-Mart greeter who wanted to see his receipt was somewhat relieved after a jury did not find him guilty of second-degree assault, but convicted him of misdemeanor assault. The three-day trial for Donald Lynch...
- Mar. 13, 2008;


Was Freeman treated differently because Freeman was a cop??

[Justin Thyme]

Maybe Freeman was treated differently because he knocked down a Walmart greeter in Tennessee instead of Washington.

[davrik]

Or maybe it was because he was a cop.

[Tsavodiner]

OK, davrilavigne, or should I call you Son of Duke?

[davrik]

Don't know Duke, nor is he my Daddy. You can go back in my posts and see that I almost always side with the cops. But, in this case, he should have been charged with a crime, at least according to cops that are finally speaking out, including a police Captain.

And yes, I will drink beer with you any time, as you have indicated that you will pay, tsadolooper.

[Tsavodiner]

Drink hell, with an attitude like that, you should come on down and apply.

"A CAPTAIN said it, so it must be right".
I happen to know and like the Mephus, but I'm not blowing him, so you'd know his mind better than I would. It's self-serving and quite unnecessary to the process to have brought the previous event up, and smacks of sour grapes and a blithe attempt to rebuild some IA pride and political capital for aspiring chief-types. He's better that that; you're evidently not.
If they could have carried their water the FIRST time, they would have.

On second thought, forget the application; we've quite enough boot-lickers to last awhile.

[davrik]

Geez, tvaolooper I thought you were buying the drinks. Don't worry about the application; not interested. To many Kenneth Freeman types there, for my taste.

[Tsavodiner]

If that's the problem, swallow or use mouthwash, I don't much care.

And that's "tsavolauper" to mirror your "davrilavigne".

I just wanna have fun, and you, who has shit to do with it, take seriously what you should barely notice. I'll speak with mephus about his roughness toward you.

[frayne]

My only comment is, if he falsified pay documents, that is theft/stealing and grounds in and of itself for termination at most places of employment.

[duke]

Oct 21, 2009 8:03:29 GMT -5 frayne said:

My only comment is, if he falsified pay documents, that is theft/stealing and grounds in and of itself for termination at most places of employment.

Ah, only if the firing option was exercised for prior incidents involving white officers?

The argument never works for the general public, but who knows what a court will decide since the aggrieved is a black police officer. Freeman managed to pull off an assault and battery without being charged.

[frayne]

Oct 21, 2009 8:48:12 GMT -5 duke said:

Oct 21, 2009 8:03:29 GMT -5 frayne said:

My only comment is, if he falsified pay documents, that is theft/stealing and grounds in and of itself for termination at most places of employment.

Ah, only if the firing option was exercised for prior incidents involving white officers?

The argument never works for the general public, but who knows what a court will decide since the aggrieved is a black police officer. Freeman managed to pull off an assault and battery without being charged.

If white officers falsify pay records, they should be fired as well.

[duke]

Oct 21, 2009 9:03:01 GMT -5 frayne said:

If white officers falsify pay records, they should be fired as well.

I agree. Perhaps Freeman will provide evidence of the practice. If the statute of limitations has not expired, action should be taken to eliminate any disparity. If action is taken against white officers, the foundation would under Freeman's charge would fail.

My question would be why, as a dedicated investigator, did Freeman not present evidence of this wrong doing before being himself charged? Why did Freeman choose to take advantage of a illegal practice and cover up, by failing to report, the illegal acts?

[davrik]

Do you in the know think that a reason Freeman, Snyder and others were retained as officers despite serious allegations could be related to the CPD being under staffed, with no new cop training classes scheduled?


I am not saying it is a reason, but there have been many employers/bosses that were reluctant to fire employees due to the percieved problem of replacing that employee, especially highly trained ones like police officers. I even knew an employer that kept an employee who he caught stealing from him. The employer's excuse was due to the fact that the employee was well trained, hard to replace, and it would cause him extra work to do so. He ended up firing him a year later when he stole again.

[professorx]

Oct 19, 2009 18:55:08 GMT -5 duke said:

Customer Convicted For Shoving 75-Year-Old Walmart Receipt Checker
By Ben Popken, 12:54 PM on Fri Mar 14 2008
Donald Lynch, certified public accountant, was convicted of misdemeanor assault after pushing a 75-year-old Walmart greeter who wanted to check his receipt, reports The Chronicle. Lynch said the greeter tried to block him by pushing against him with his shoulder. Security tape showed the greeter flying to the floor. While an employee has no right to touch you, you also don't have a right to shove them on the floor, especially if they're septuagenarian!

consumerist.com/368007/customer-convicted-for-shoving-75+year+old-walmart-receipt-checker

Check this out Duke.

Wal-Mart security guard fired for chasing and confronting a shoplifter.

www.gainesville.com/article/20091021/articles/910219954&tc=yahoo

The greeter violated store policy when he assaulted the now-former police officer.

"But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear." AND this is when it is KNOWN the person stole something.

What happened to your gung-hu policy toward the 4th Ammendment, search and seizure, and false detention?
Hmmmmm.... What could be different about this case?

[Scarlet&Gray]

"But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear." AND this is when it is KNOWN the person stole something.

Their loss prevention dept at both stores in Cleveland break this policy everyday. Seen it happen many of times.

Wal-Mart incident is a moot point. He was justifibly fired for the last incidents. CPD should say good riddance. He won't win the civil rights suit either. Mark it down.

[professorx]

Oct 23, 2009 19:54:41 GMT -5 Scarlet&Gray said:

"But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear." AND this is when it is KNOWN the person stole something.

Their loss prevention dept at both stores in Cleveland break this policy everyday. Seen it happen many of times.

Wal-Mart incident is a moot point. He was justifibly fired for the last incidents. CPD should say good riddance. He won't win the civil rights suit either. Mark it down.

What he did or didn't do in his life is moot. He could have stomped a baby kitten and violated my civil rights the day before he went to Walmart. The point is he was chased down and grabbed by a Walmart sercurity guard, a violation of their policy.
Such a violation is a offense warranting termination according to their policy.

Never mind the ex-cop. How would you like to be grabbed for no reason while you were walking out of a store? That's one issue.

Second. What about his past record before the incident? It was published in the paper. It was a lot of accusations like "He wasn't very polite" if I remember correctly. That's not that bad considering he was a veteran officer.

Third. He and a woman get into a confrontation. She knows he is in trouble and tries to cause more trouble for him.

[duke]

Oct 23, 2009 17:06:51 GMT -5 professorx said:

Check this out Duke.

Wal-Mart security guard fired for chasing and confronting a shoplifter.

www.gainesville.com/article/20091021/articles/910219954&tc=yahoo

The greeter violated store policy when he assaulted the now-former police officer.

"But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear." AND this is when it is KNOWN the person stole something.

What happened to your gung-hu ho policy toward the 4th Ammendment Amendment, search and seizure, and false detention?
Hmmmmm.... What could be different about this case?

What happened to my policy? My policy has not changed. This October 21, 2009 Florida Wal-Mart incident has not been discussed here before. My policy is strict. . . never ever discuss incidents before they happen.

Professor, are you an affirmative action scholar of music or art. For sure it is not the constitution. The US Constitution constrains government NOT the citizenry. For years the US Supreme Court restricted the application of any part of the US Constitution to the Federal Government thereby denying citizens the protections enumerated therein unless the violations were by actions of the Federal government.
“The [US SUpreme] Court first held that the right to be free from unreasonable official searches was "implicit in `the concept of ordered liberty,'" and therefore protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 -28 (1949)” [Emphasis added]

Violation of personal space by other citizens is a statutory tort or criminal act. Wal-Mart Josh Rutner’s actions will expose him to civil penalties by way a civil torts and possible criminal assault charges, and by extension through respondeat superior, Wal-Mart. Therein lies Wal-Mart’s concerns in addition to Josh Rutner’s safety in confronting someone without training or the backing of a police department.

Josh Rutner’s actions go far beyond what the Collegedale Wal-Mart greeter’s actions as well.
“After radioing for assistance, Rutner and two other employees tackled the man outside the food center doors.”
What is different? Really, you see no difference between a touch, or possible grab depending on who you choose to believe, on the arm inside the store and a tackle outside?

Violations of store policy is not a crime. Violations of ANY store policy is not a crime. Nor is any store policy violations a tort. All torts and crimes are created by government actors.

If you would get your nose far enough away some cop’s ass, you just might be able to see beyond the s__t you are now consuming and expecting others to accept.

“Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Capt. Mike Mathis said Monday that former officer Ralph Kenneth Freeman "should have gone to jail" for an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Collegedale Wal-Mart.” [chattanoogan.com] I, duke, did not say this, IA did.

[Justin Thyme]

What is different? Really, you see no difference between a touch, or possible grab depending on who you choose to believe, on the arm inside the store and a tackle outside?

As far as committing simple battery goes I don't think there is a difference. The difference might be considered during sentencing but not in determining the charge. At least that's my understanding of the crime of battery.

As far as whether it was a touch or a grab, the store video that has been made available shows much more than a simple touch.

"Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Capt. Mike Mathis said Monday that former officer Ralph Kenneth Freeman "should have gone to jail" for an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Collegedale Wal-Mart." [chattanoogan.com] I, duke, did not say this, IA did.

A judge said there was nothing to charge Officer Freeman with. The Collegedale officer on the scene said there was nothing to charge Officer Freeman with and the Hamilton County Grand Jury, after reading the findings of a TBI investigation into the incident, stated there was nothing to charge Officer Freeman with. Those were three entities that had the authority to charge Officer Freeman with a crime in that incident. Capt. Mike Mathis had no authority to charge Officer Freeman with a crime in the Walmart incident so his statement that Officer Freeman should have gone to jail is just his opinion. An opinion, in this case, that carries no more weight than your's, mine or a chimpanzees.

[Tsavodiner]

If you would get your nose far enough away some cop’s ass, you just might be able to see beyond the s__t you are now consuming and expecting others to accept. “Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Capt. Mike Mathis said Monday that former officer Ralph Kenneth Freeman "should have gone to jail" for an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Collegedale Wal-Mart.” [chattanoogan.com] I, duke, did not say this, IA did.

Like I said, and I'll say it to you again:

"woulda--shoulda--coulda" If they could have carried their water the first time, they would have. They thought they had Larry Goodine up by the balls, too, and a jury of his peers said different. That's what you get when you have Infernal Attairs running criminal investigations on your cops: knee-jerk, gratuitous-after-the-fact-monday-morning-quarterbacking that leads to bad 'stare decisis' and reinstatements of people who may or may not deserve it. they're damn lucky Collegedale had the ball on that one, and out of their court.

Speaking of gratuitous: If anybody should KNOW what [edited to add EVERY] cop's ass should smell like, IT'S YOU!

[professorx]

[/quote]

What happened to my policy? My policy has not changed. This October 21, 2009 Florida Wal-Mart incident has not been discussed here before. My policy is strict. . . never ever discuss incidents before they happen.

Professor, are you an affirmative action scholar of music or art. For sure it is not the constitution. The US Constitution constrains government NOT the citizenry. For years the US Supreme Court restricted the application of any part of the US Constitution to the Federal Government thereby denying citizens the protections enumerated therein unless the violations were by actions of the Federal government.
“The [US SUpreme] Court first held that the right to be free from unreasonable official searches was "implicit in `the concept of ordered liberty,'" and therefore protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 -28 (1949)” [Emphasis added]

Violation of personal space by other citizens is a statutory tort or criminal act. Wal-Mart Josh Rutner’s actions will expose him to civil penalties by way a civil torts and possible criminal assault charges, and by extension through respondeat superior, Wal-Mart. Therein lies Wal-Mart’s concerns in addition to Josh Rutner’s safety in confronting someone without training or the backing of a police department.

Josh Rutner’s actions go far beyond what the Collegedale Wal-Mart greeter’s actions as well.
“After radioing for assistance, Rutner and two other employees tackled the man outside the food center doors.”
What is different? Really, you see no difference between a touch, or possible grab depending on who you choose to believe, on the arm inside the store and a tackle outside?

Violations of store policy is not a crime. Violations of ANY store policy is not a crime. Nor is any store policy violations a tort. All torts and crimes are created by government actors.

If you would get your nose far enough away some cop’s ass, you just might be able to see beyond the s__t you are now consuming and expecting others to accept.

“Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Capt. Mike Mathis said Monday that former officer Ralph Kenneth Freeman "should have gone to jail" for an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Collegedale Wal-Mart.” [chattanoogan.com] I, duke, did not say this, IA did. [/quote]

I think that you have disregarded your policy and agenda in this one case because the victim was an off-duty cop. If this person had been a private citizen and gotten wrapped up in this mess, then lost his job because of it you would have normally been outraged.

If a private citizen would have been falsely accosted, accused, and detained by walmart, then demonized in the media as a "thug" you would have been beside yourself.

If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.

As far as the CPD goes, I don't know or have any contact with them. I only have an objective view of what I feel is right and wrong. I think this guy got fucked. The anti-cop crowd are using him as a scape-goat and a symbol of all they dislike about the police in general.

I think he could have avoided all this by arresting the store security guard at the time of the assault as a sort of CYA.
I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and you wonder why cops can be dicks.

[duke]

Oct 24, 2009 23:51:15 GMT -5 professorx said:

I think that you have disregarded your policy and agenda in this one case because the victim was an off-duty cop. If this person had been a private citizen and gotten wrapped up in this mess, then lost his job because of it you would have normally been outraged.

If a private citizen would have been falsely accosted, accused, and detained by walmart, then demonized in the media as a "thug" you would have been beside yourself.

If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.

As far as the CPD goes, I don't know or have any contact with them. I only have an objective view of what I feel is right and wrong. I think this guy got fucked. The anti-cop crowd are using him as a scape-goat and a symbol of all they dislike about the police in general.

I think he could have avoided all this by arresting the store security guard at the time of the assault as a sort of CYA.
I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and you wonder why cops can be dicks.

Since you failed to identify which case “this case” is you are referring to, I shall have to presume by the totality of the post you are referring to Kenneth Freeman of the CPD.

Kenneth Freeman was a victim? Of Assault?
Let’s examine your ‘objective view of the Freeman v. Wal-Mart Greeter incident.
TCA 39-13-101. Assault. —
(a) A person commits assault who:
(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; Did the greeter cause bodily injury to Freeman either knowingly or recklessly? Is see no proof or allegation of this definition in anything I have seen or read. IF you have, post it.

(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or

Did the greeter cause Freeman to ‘reasonably’ fear bodily injury? Freeman claims the grab was ‘close’ to his gun so he ‘feared’ the touch/grab would compromise the security of the gun.
Was not the gun strapped? Was not the gun covered by a coat to further the off duty and or plain-clothes detective image?
For the sake of argument the forgoing status of the gun is assumed to be true. There would have been two (2) stated obstacles for any aggressor to gain access to pull the gun from its holster. Additionally, the greeter would have had to reverse body movement away from the arm before beginning to tackle the two (2) obstacles mentioned and would also have needed personal knowledge that there was indeed a gun in the concealed position, obstacle three (3).
Freeman had just past the greeter. What reasonable cop would be so absorbed in other matters that he/she would ignore s person in close proximity to the intended path of movement? It is therefore reasonable to believe that Freeman knew or should have known exactly the likely source of the touch/grab. If Freeman knew the greeter was an old and much smaller man than himself, there was no basis for a ‘reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury

It can also be assumed that Freeman knew that Wal-Mart greeters often asked to see receipts and indeed may have happened to an individual in view of Freeman and that Freeman determined not to acknowledge the greeter and should the greeter press the issue Freeman planned to teach the greeter a lesson in how to treat the privileged class of cops.

On the other hand, the greeter thrown to the floor and having to look up at Freeman certainly would have a valid reason to fear further ‘imminent bodily injury’ yet in your view Freeman committed no crime.

(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative. Indeed many reasonable persons have not found the actions of the greeter ‘extremely offensive or provocative.” Most shoppers complied with verbal requests thereby never escalating the situation to a physical attempt at detention.

The fact that the detention was against store policy is not a matter for Freeman to enforce. Freeman was not commissioned to enforce store policy by any means much less violent force. Freeman could indeed have shook off the greeter and continued on his way or reversed course and filed a complaint with store management. As shown in my post of another similar incident the shopper was arrested as well as the Florida incident where the ‘shopper by theft’ was arrested.

Could Freeman have arrested the greeter. Yep. To make the charges stick, Freeman would need Sgt. McPherson to back any story Freeman concocted to justify the arrest.

If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.
The actions of the Wal-Mart greeter? Yes of course. Perhaps you failed to read or comprehend my last post that the 4th amendment applies to government actors who have been granted additional responsibilities, privileges and immunities but does apply to any other citizens.

Your claim that Kenneth Freeman lost his job over the Wal-Mart incident is a total fabricated falsehood. Freeman suffered a 28 day suspension in the hope that Freeman would wake up and realize that being a cop does not shield one from ALL laws and /or regulations. Freeman lost hi job over multiple incidents of his disregard of restrictions for which he had no employment discipline immunity.

Referring to Kenneth Freeman as a victim of circumstances outside of himself fails miserably.

[Scarlet&Gray]

He falsified time sheets that's theft anyway you look at it. All employers will fire you for that. We had a 20 yr. veteran Sgt. with Bradley County do it to the tune of $10,000 guess what he got the Donald Trump line you're fired. Lucky he wasn't charged with theft over 10,000 which is a felony.

[professorx]

Oct 25, 2009 12:41:03 GMT -5 duke said:

Oct 24, 2009 23:51:15 GMT -5 professorx said:

I think that you have disregarded your policy and agenda in this one case because the victim was an off-duty cop. If this person had been a private citizen and gotten wrapped up in this mess, then lost his job because of it you would have normally been outraged.

If a private citizen would have been falsely accosted, accused, and detained by walmart, then demonized in the media as a "thug" you would have been beside yourself.

If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.

As far as the CPD goes, I don't know or have any contact with them. I only have an objective view of what I feel is right and wrong. I think this guy got fucked. The anti-cop crowd are using him as a scape-goat and a symbol of all they dislike about the police in general.

I think he could have avoided all this by arresting the store security guard at the time of the assault as a sort of CYA.
I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and you wonder why cops can be dicks.

Since you failed to identify which case “this case” is you are referring to, I shall have to presume by the totality of the post you are referring to Kenneth Freeman of the CPD.

Kenneth Freeman was a victim? Of Assault?
Let’s examine your ‘objective view of the Freeman v. Wal-Mart Greeter incident.
TCA 39-13-101. Assault. —
(a) A person commits assault who:
(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; Did the greeter cause bodily injury to Freeman either knowingly or recklessly? Is see no proof or allegation of this definition in anything I have seen or read. IF you have, post it.

(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or

Did the greeter cause Freeman to ‘reasonably’ fear bodily injury? Freeman claims the grab was ‘close’ to his gun so he ‘feared’ the touch/grab would compromise the security of the gun.
Was not the gun strapped? Was not the gun covered by a coat to further the off duty and or plain-clothes detective image?
For the sake of argument the forgoing status of the gun is assumed to be true. There would have been two (2) stated obstacles for any aggressor to gain access to pull the gun from its holster. Additionally, the greeter would have had to reverse body movement away from the arm before beginning to tackle the two (2) obstacles mentioned and would also have needed personal knowledge that there was indeed a gun in the concealed position, obstacle three (3).
Freeman had just past the greeter. What reasonable cop would be so absorbed in other matters that he/she would ignore s person in close proximity to the intended path of movement? It is therefore reasonable to believe that Freeman knew or should have known exactly the likely source of the touch/grab. If Freeman knew the greeter was an old and much smaller man than himself, there was no basis for a ‘reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury

It can also be assumed that Freeman knew that Wal-Mart greeters often asked to see receipts and indeed may have happened to an individual in view of Freeman and that Freeman determined not to acknowledge the greeter and should the greeter press the issue Freeman planned to teach the greeter a lesson in how to treat the privileged class of cops.

On the other hand, the greeter thrown to the floor and having to look up at Freeman certainly would have a valid reason to fear further ‘imminent bodily injury’ yet in your view Freeman committed no crime.

(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative. Indeed many reasonable persons have not found the actions of the greeter ‘extremely offensive or provocative.” Most shoppers complied with verbal requests thereby never escalating the situation to a physical attempt at detention.

The fact that the detention was against store policy is not a matter for Freeman to enforce. Freeman was not commissioned to enforce store policy by any means much less violent force. Freeman could indeed have shook off the greeter and continued on his way or reversed course and filed a complaint with store management. As shown in my post of another similar incident the shopper was arrested as well as the Florida incident where the ‘shopper by theft’ was arrested.

Could Freeman have arrested the greeter. Yep. To make the charges stick, Freeman would need Sgt. McPherson to back any story Freeman concocted to justify the arrest.

If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.
The actions of the Wal-Mart greeter? Yes of course. Perhaps you failed to read or comprehend my last post that the 4th amendment applies to government actors who have been granted additional responsibilities, privileges and immunities but does apply to any other citizens.

Your claim that Kenneth Freeman lost his job over the Wal-Mart incident is a total fabricated falsehood. Freeman suffered a 28 day suspension in the hope that Freeman would wake up and realize that being a cop does not shield one from ALL laws and /or regulations. Freeman lost hi job over multiple incidents of his disregard of restrictions for which he had no employment discipline immunity.

Referring to Kenneth Freeman as a victim of circumstances outside of himself fails miserably.

Duke, I will learn to use multiquote one day.

I still feel like you have a double standard. You have to take several instances of this man's life to build a case against him. You can mix and match bits and pieces to try to vilify him. I am not sure that anyone would have reacted differently if ran up from behind and grabbed.

As far falsifying time sheets, I know nothing about that. It wasn't on the news like the rest of the story.

I am not sure what your point is regarding the 4th amendment and government employees... If a Walmart employee demanded to search my bag, I would tell him no. If a Walmart employee ran up and me then lost his balance and went flying, I would have to say he brought it on himself. If a real cop ran up on someone and surprised them I would have to say the cop brought it on himself.
Fourth amendment, or common sense. You don't just run up and grab people and not expect the person to not react.

Second he got in the argument with his friend at the apartment. She said "Hey I knew I could cause him problems". There is never a situation where people are vindictive and get other people in trouble?

Again, you are supposed to be the legal laureate of the forum. At least be consistent.

Let's start off slow.

1. Can a security guard legally phyically confront a customer and forcefully grab them? How would a reasonable person react if ran up on from behind and grabbed?

[professorx]

Oct 25, 2009 16:34:30 GMT -5 Scarlet&Gray said:

He falsified time sheets that's theft anyway you look at it. All employers will fire you for that. We had a 20 yr. veteran Sgt. with Bradley County do it to the tune of $10,000 guess what he got the Donald Trump line you're fired. Lucky he wasn't charged with theft over 10,000 which is a felony.

Discipline in these cases are understandable. But I think he was totally justified in his actions at the department store. Not because he was a cop, but because no one should be ran down, or grabbed for no reason.

I don't know the specifics of the time sheets accusation. But it might be possible that they were so upset about the unwanted attention, that they searched all his time sheets for one error, then busted him for it. I don't know.

When shit piles up on any one person, I tend to be sympathetic. There might be a lot of behind the scenes stuff we don't know about.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency with the way this man was treated. From the legal scholars on this message board, to his own former department. This is all my opinion though. There is something that make me have a gut reaction that he got screwed.

It was only a while back when another CPD officer essentially pulled a gun on a mall cop in Marietta. And that officer is still employed as far as I am know. Maybe that officer was under the influence while carrying that weapon. Maybe it was not an authorized weapon. Who knows? I wouldn't have fired that officer either if all the reports were true. I think a "stress related" retirement might have been better.

Whatever is done to one, should be done for all. Consistency.

[duke]

Oct 25, 2009 18:02:00 GMT -5 professorx said:

Duke, I will learn to use multiquote one day.

I still feel like you have a double standard. You have to take several instances of this man's life to build a case against him. You can mix and match bits and pieces to try to vilify him. I am not sure that anyone would have reacted differently if ran up from behind and grabbed.

I am sure that some others, like I post above, would not have reacted in the manner Freeman did. I am also sure that there are some who would have reacted the in the same manner. I posted in this thread near the top, of someone who was not a cop that reacted like Freeman and was arrested and noted the difference in government actions.
I had relative who reacted violently to anyone toughing him from behind and was proud of the fact he had flattened several. He also claimed the reaction was involuntary and could not be helped.
After about six months of random proddings from behind without his being able to connect, the reflex was almost non-existent. His wife would giggle with each prod by me and miss by him. So the violent behavior can be altered. It is learned and cherished until there is no reward.

As far falsifying time sheets, I know nothing about that. It wasn't on the news like the rest of the story.

The falsifying of time sheets was stated at the time of Freeman’s termination. In a way reasons were anti-climatic because the public finally got the firing it had been clamoring for. Like the dog that chases cars, if the car stops the dog has no idea what to do next. Try it sometime. The dog’s reaction is priceless.

I am not sure what your point is regarding the 4th amendment and government employees... If a Walmart employee demanded to search my bag, I would tell him no. If a Walmart employee ran up and me then lost his balance and went flying, I would have to say he brought it on himself. If a real cop ran up on someone and surprised them I would have to say the cop brought it on himself.

Your assertion was that I had a double standard by not vilifying the greeter for violating the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment simply does not apply to the actions of the greeter.
While not stated in your profile for the sake of argument I am going to assume that you are a male. Would a law stating that anyone getting an abortion would be guilty of 1st degree murder apply to you a male? Yet if you are a female who is pregnant and aborts the fetus, that same law would be valid and you as a female could be charged.
The same principal holds true for the 4th amendment that applies to government actors but not to non-government actors.

Fourth amendment, or common sense. You don't just run up and grab people and not expect the person to not react.

This is true but I answered your charge of vilifying Freeman and not the greeter based on your stated understanding of the 4th amendment.

Second he got in the argument with his friend at the apartment. She said "Hey I knew I could cause him problems". There is never a situation where people are vindictive and get other people in trouble?

I stated on the thread that announced the firing, that Freeman’s firing likely had a political basis. That the charges while apparently valid likely would never have been brought up had Freeman been in good standing. I posted that Freeman’s value as a cop was perceived to be less than his potential liability. I was one who accepted the 28 day suspension without calling for termination. Go back and look it up in the old posts.

Again, you are supposed to be the legal laureate of the forum. At least be consistent.

Thanks but verify anything you see on the internet And being consistent is a priority.

Let's start off slow.

1. Can a security guard legally phyically confront a customer and forcefully grab them? How would a reasonable person react if ran up on from behind and grabbed?

Can? Of course the guard can. But is the action legal and / or does the action comply with employer policy. Two entirely different circumstances you have lumped into one question.
Under citizens arrest powers the security guard has the same power of detention and arrest as a cop BUT without the cops qualified immunity protection. The guard cannot take the attested person to jail but is instructed to turn the arrestee over to LE. A word to the wise, be very careful.

I have read 2 versions of the events just prior to the greeter touching/grabbing Freeman. One version stated that the anti-theft alarm sounded, the other version it did not. If indeed the alarm sounded there was most definitely a reason and probable cause for a detention.

[/quote]