Title: Disturbing Video Shows a Cop Brutally Beat a Child for Riding Her Bike, Charges HER with Assualt Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... -riding-bike-mall-parking-lot/ Published:May 14, 2016 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2016-05-14 12:42:40 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:29368 Comments:194
Tacoma, WA — On May 24, 2014, 15-year-old Monique Tillman and her brother were riding their bikes when they were stopped and this young girl brutally assaulted by Tacoma Police Officer Jared Williams.
Tillman and her brother had done nothing wrong, and were merely targetted by this ‘public servant’ because they had the unfortunate luck to have crossed paths with him.
As the duo travelled home, they cut through a mall parking lot, as they had done countless times before. However, this time, Officer Williams was in that parking lot, in his full Tacoma Police department uniform, yet off-duty, working as mall security. As the teens travelled through the lot, Williams began pursuit of these hardened criminals and accused them of trespassing.
Knowing they’d done nothing wrong, Monique attempted to explain to the officer that they cut through the parking lot all the time on their way home. However, this tyrant was having nothing of it.
As the duo attempted to ride away from a man whose intentions were clearly unscrupulous, Williams attacked. A recently released surveillance video shows the disturbing scene that unfolded next.
This heroic officer ripped the girl from her bike and slammed her up against a parked car with his hand around her neck. As the child struggled to breathe, this abusive tyrant grabbed her by the hair and flung her around like a rag doll.
Clearly overpowering the small child, half his size, the officer wasn’t satisfied with the damage he’d inflicted so far. So, for good measure, Williams pulled out his taser and sent 50,000 volts into this poor girl.
“He was choking me, grabbed me by my hair and tried to slam my face into the concrete. The next thing I know, I’m on the ground being tased,” Tillman said.
Now face down, tasered, handcuffed and brutalized, Williams stood over his victim like a hunter and his kill. He had protected society from the likes of a dangerous brother and sister riding their bicycles.
Williams then arrested Monique and charged her with resisting arrest and, get this, assault on an officer.
After viewing the surveillance video of the incident, however, all of the charges were thrown out.
Vito de la Cruz, Tillman’s attorney, has filed a lawsuit seeking damages from Officer Williams, the Simon Property Group who owns the Tacoma Mall and Universal Protection Services, the private security company in charge of Tacoma Mall security.
“A child riding a bike should not have to worry that a police officer will stop her without legal cause and brutalize her,” said de la Cruz. “Our communities are weary of another African American child being hurt by unwarranted and excessive police force.”
The Free Thought Project reached out the Tacoma PD to inquire about Williams’ current status and if any disciplinary action had been taken. However, our requests for comment were not returned.
Below is what policing in modern day America has become.
I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall,
I never said they were employees of the corporation … did I?
…and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.
You are consistent in what you want the law to be, but you are consistently wrong.
I'm not wrong in what I want the law to be. I think I can speak authoritatively on that.
She is required to comply with the commands of the officer. He may escalate his force to whatever it takes to force her compliance.
But not beyond that needed, which from the video certainly seems to be the case here, and apparently the cause of the civil case now filed against the officer, the mall, et al.
Resisting the officer in his duties is not self-defence.
If the officer grabs a girl's hair and starts throwing her around that way, then the girl can hardly be held responsible for whatever action she takes in her own self-defense from that point forward, such as grabbing the guards hands. Expecting her to suffer through pain and possibly serious injury by not taking any instinctive self-protective measures is surely ludicrous. And I don't think that's a subjective statement.
I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall
The kids were not there for any purpose but to use it as a short cut. Mall security wanted the kids to be given a traspassing notice.
At #35:
They'd left McDonald's and decided to take a short cut home through the mall's lot.
[...]
The police report described the kids cutting off cars earlier, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them, and that the mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.
and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.
But the police are not being sued. So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.
The police report described the kids cutting off cars earlier, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them, and that the mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.
If so, the offense was not trespassing, but disturbing the peace.
It's also not trespassing in a place of public accommodation until after someone is told they may not come. I suppose that may have been the point of the notice. Not a citation or claim any offense was committed, but just a "notice".
But still, given the girl was arrested, why wasn't disturbing the peace or some similar charge levelled related to the real reason for the stop, instead of resisting and assault?
But not beyond that needed, which from the video certainly seems to be the case here
No, it does not appear so. The officer did not strike her and did not choke her. The filed Complaint specifies no physical injury whatever, but where the taser struck must have left a mark. She unlawfully tried to flee and resisted. He overcame her resistence with the taser. She could have complied at any time.
the girl can hardly be held responsible for whatever action she takes in her own self-defense from that point forward
She can be held responsible for whatever she does to resist. It is unlawful resistance, not self-defence. The only reason any force was being used was her resistance. After the taser, the officer stood aside and mall security handcuffed her.
So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.
Inappropriately? Maybe yes … maybe no.
There are a number of cities that have a formal program that allow their police officers to be serve as private security while they are in uniform. LA and NYC are but two of those cities. I don’t know the Tacoma police policy on this.
Open to the Public - A shopping center lot is not a public parking lot if it's a privately owned parking lot belonging to the owner of the shopping mall. The people leasing the property or the owners of the property can tow you if you don't park according to their wishes. The privately owned parking lots at the shopping malls are “open to the public” to provide a great service by allowing us access to retail and office centers. The owners or management controls access to a privately owned shopping center parking lot “open to the public.” In Cincinnati recently private event club transitioned to a cocktail bar and lounge that’s “open to the public.” While it is “open to the public,” the management or owners can have you leave if there is sufficient reason to. “Open to the public” does not mean it is public property, that the public can have access anytime they desire or do anything the want to. It is still private property if it is privately owned or owned by a corporation and they control the “dos and don'ts.”
Blah,blah,blah. You are more full of shit than a Thanksgiving turkey.
There is no lie you won't tell and no truth you won't stretch to the limits in order to provide excuses for cowardly thugs with badges.
HOW were the mall owners going to call tow trucks to tow off the kids bicycles that were just traveling THROUGH the parking lot?
More importantly,the trouble started with the mall employee,a thug with a badge,stopped the kids TO KEEP THEM FROM LEAVING.
Are you now claiming mall owners have a right to imprison people passing through?
A mall parking lot IS public property,and the only time the public is forbidden access to that property is when those INDIVIDUALS have broken some of the rules and management has told them to leave. The kids were ALREADY leaving,you idiot. It was the mall employees that kept them there.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
She unlawfully tried to flee and resisted. He overcame her resistence with the taser. She could have complied at any time.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
The officer clearly threw her to the ground with his left hand firmly holding her hair. The taser followed. In sum, it easily appeared to me as excessive force, and apart from what did appear to be an attempt by the girl to leave the scene, there is no obvious move of resistance to me through the rest of the ordeal. That all charges were dropped reinforces that observation.
It is unlawful resistance, not self-defence.
They may call it that in a court of law, but that doesn't mean in real life, people have not been killed by police because they could not breath under the weight of several cops standing on top of them, chocking them, and/or beating them. It has happened as you know. Ergo, those people who died certainly had a natural right to self-defense against the excessive acts of the police. Obviously we can see that most clearly in hindsight, but if it's there in hindsight, it still means it was there and is there.
Obviously the courts will be slow to find innocent as a matter of self defense anyone harming a police officer while knowing it was a police officer. But if a cop can kill out of reasonable fear for his own life, then that right has to apply to citizens as well. And the more cops are trained to shoot at the slightest provocation, the more reason informed citizens have to be fearful of cops who point guns at them.
and she was CLEARLY resisting arrest when he started tossing her around,choking her,and tasing her.
Not agreed. Once a cop starts that kind of treatment, even if it's warranted which in this case sure appears it was not, the person being so attacked is not legally liable for any kind of resistant or defensive action. Or shouldn't be. That is a completely natural and instinctive survival response. Only if they do something criminal BEFORE being treated like that should they be charged with resisting and/or assault. That's common sense, if common sense should ever apply in these cases.
You misunderstood me. The girl was peacefully (not using force) to resist arrest by peddling away,and was then assaulted by the thug with the badge. She THEN started resisting,and who wouldn't? Other than some of jackboot lickers here,that is.
Which nullifies the first point about her resisting arrest. He had no right to stop or try to arrest her,so she can't be charged with resisting an illegal arrest.
I didn't say she was ILLEGALLY resisting arrest,I just said she was resisting once he grabbed her. Up to the point where he grabbed her,she was just leaving.
Too many cops are their own worse enemies because they create enemies where none existed before by being power-mad abusive assholes.
One of life's greatest wonders to me is why more people aren't sniping at policemen from rooftops.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
There are a number of cities that have a formal program that allow their police officers to be serve as private security while they are in uniform. LA and NYC are but two of those cities.
Okay, but in any event, since the city is not named as a defendant in the case, it's apparent that the cop was not acting in the capacity of a cop when working for the mall.
Officer Williams was at work, at the mall, paid by the mall. The juvenile delinquents were doing it long enough for Officer Williams and mall security to respond.
Think much before posting?
I don't give a rabid rat's ass if he had been adopted by the corporation that owns the mall,the way the process works is that citizens call 9-11 to report a problem,9-11 notifies the cops on duty,and the cops on duty then respond to the 9-11 call. For reasons I don't pretend to understand,the city let Officer Bozo work as a security guard at a private mall while wearing his PD uniform and badge,and they even let him drive a PD car while doing it. In other words,he picked up on the 9-11 operator paging patrol cars over his patrol car radio.
This doesn't happen instantly. It takes time,and by the time the phone calls are made and the 9-11 operators put out the notification,whoever was doing what was claimed,IF anyone was actually doing that,was long gone.
I would love to see the lawyers representing the teens demand the 9-11 recordings with date and time stamps.
Frankly,I don't begin to understand why the Tacoma PD is backing that fool,and leaving themselves and the city open to lawsuits. I think ever similar situation I have ever heard of,the city and the PD couldn't back away from their off-duty cop any faster.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
This shopping center parking lot belonged to the mall owner and was private property.
HorseHillary. Show me ONE example of any mall having people arrested for tresspassing for doing nothing more than driving through the parking lot,and the arrest sticking
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Too many cops are their own worse enemies because they create enemies where none existed before by being power-mad abusive assholes.
Ain't that the truth! Kinda reminds me of US foreign policy, specifically with the drone wars. Cops would be well served to treat the public as their friends instead of potential enemies & killers. A poll would be interesting to see of what the average person's emotional response is when seeing a cop. I think most driver's experience a small amount of panic in wondering if they happen to be speeding that that moment.
One of life's greatest wonders to me is why more people aren't sniping at policemen from rooftops.
At that point it's an open civil rebellion/war. Usually it takes a lot more than police abuse to bring that about.
Where did you read that anyone called 911? Where did you read that the police were dispatched to arrest the kids?
I know the cop was psychotic,but that doesn't mean he was psychic. Just exactly how did he know all this was happening in no one called 9-11?
EVERYBODY knows the 9-11 phone number,but how many people know the phone number for mall management?
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Of the officer, [Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta] Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."
He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.
Good to know you think police departments work for mall owners.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You are consistent in what you want the law to be, but you are consistently wrong. She is required to comply with the commands of the officer. He may escalate his force to whatever it takes to force her compliance. Resisting the officer in his duties is not self-defence.
You really are the perfect little Nazi,aren't you?
All that education,and not a speck of common sense or humanity.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
The kids were not there for any purpose but to use it as a short cut. Mall security wanted the kids to be given a traspassing notice.
So what? WTF are mall security and what gives them the right to stop and detain people who aren't committing any crimes?
They had no right to stop the kids to start with. The MOST they have the authority to do is to ask people causing a disturbance to leave or they will call the police,and they kids were leaving when the thugs in blue stopped them.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
HorseHillary. Show me ONE example of any mall having people arrested for tresspassing for doing nothing more than driving through the parking lot,and the arrest sticking
I actually had a friend who worked as a Santa Claus at a mall. I never found out the details, but some kind of altercation occurred where the mall ended up firing him or discontinuing whatever contract they had, and in addition the mall specifically disinvited him from returning even to shop. I think it would be considered trespassing if he were to return. I was told that if he wanted to return after a year, he could write to them and ask permission and they'd consider lifting the restriction.
Was it legal? I don't know. It may not have been legally enforceable, but so often, the illusion of legal authority is imposed where it doesn't exist. I never found out what happened as he didn't want to talk about it. I could infer from that he knew he was in the wrong somehow, but will never know. He died 6-7 years ago.
But the police are not being sued. So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.
Oddly enough,the Tacoma PD is backing him up and claiming he was on duty the instant he hit the siren to pull them over.
Makes no sense at all,but that is what they are doing.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
No, it does not appear so. The officer did not strike her and did not choke her.
He didn't have his hand around her throat?
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.
Well that's certainly interesting. He was using a city police car & gas to moonlight a private job? And then as soon as he flips a switch in the car, he's automatically making overtime from the city?
I can understand the sentiment that cops remain cops when they are off duty, and are not obligated to do nothing when they see a situation that needs addressing when the clock is not running. But if the city says he was on the city's payroll at the seen, why are they not named as defendants in this case, as they provided the taser & car used at the scene?
I actually had a friend who worked as a Santa Claus at a mall. I never found out the details, but some kind of altercation occurred where the mall ended up firing him or discontinuing whatever contract they had, and in addition the mall specifically disinvited him from returning even to shop. I think it would be considered trespassing if he were to return. I was told that if he wanted to return after a year, he could write to them and ask permission and they'd consider lifting the restriction.
Different situation.
For one thing,this started because they wanted him to leave.
The girl and her brother were trying to leave,and the cop prevented them from leaving. On top of that they had done nothing but ride their bikes through the parking lot. No altercation involved until the cop/mall security got involved.
Night and day.
Anybody that has enough sense to come in out of the rain would have just told the kids to keep on going and to not come back. If they had came back AFTER being warned to not return,then the mall would have a trespassing case. You can NOT arrest someone for trespassing when you are the one that kept them from leaving.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Well that's certainly interesting. He was using a city police car & gas to moonlight a private job? And then as soon as he flips a switch in the car, he's automatically making overtime from the city?
Yup!
I'm betting the taxpayers in Tacoma are slightly less than thrilled about that. The end result will be that the city of Tacoma (the taxpayers) will end up having to pay any settlement,not the mall. I'm starting to wonder how many of the city council members or even the mayor/the mayor's family are on the mall board or major stockholders.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
The officer did not strike her and did not choke her.
He didn't have his hand around her throat?
Looking at it again, part of the action happens off camera, but when it's recentered, it does appear the cop has his hand on her throat, then moves his hand to the chest just below the throat in what looks like a restraining measure.
As the cop is circling with this girl, her right hand is held by the cop and her left hand is touching her own face. That's before she's thrown to the ground by her hair and tased.
People who are combative don't touch their own face in the middle of a fight. I don't see how anyone could view that as assault or resisting. At least at that point in the altercation.
The girl and her brother were trying to leave,and the cop prevented them from leaving.
Actually looking at it again, she does make a move on the bike, but she may not have been trying to leave. She may have been getting off the bike, or maybe just wanted to move the bike away a couple feet from between the 2 cops before dismounting. Or maybe she really was trying to leave. If so, she was certainly not getting any jump start.
If they had came back AFTER being warned to not return,then the mall would have a trespassing case. You can NOT arrest someone for trespassing when you are the one that kept them from leaving.
On that score, the cop may have been giving them that very warning not to return. If so, and he had authority to give that warning, then he certainly would have authority to stop them and give it. So I wouldn't fault him for taking things that far.
From what I see on the video, the cop was wrong in using very excessive force against a not-overweight 15 year old girl, and that regardless of whether she attempted to leave or not.
Yes it is. But as a mall is a commercial establishment open to the public, it is a place of public accommodation. So even though it is private, people are welcome to come on to the property and enter the buildings without need of special authorization from the owner, as is needed in the case of a private home.
But the police are not being sued. So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.
This appears to be just wrong and without any legal merit.
At #35:
Of the officer, [Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta] Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."
He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.
In charging the officer, the charging party must overcome a claim that Officer Williams was a state actor acting under color of state law, and that he is covered by qualified immunity from civil liability.
In Swiecicki v Delgado, 6th Cir 05-4036 (15 Sep 2006), the court addressed the subject of when an off-duty police officer, in uniform acting as a security officer, is a state actor acting under color of state law.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. While attending a Cleveland Indians baseball game, Jeffrey Swiecicki, along with several of his friends, loudly cheered for some players and heckled others. Officer Jose Delgado, an off-duty police officer for the City of Cleveland, was in full uniform and working for the ballpark as a security guard. He allegedly heard Swiecicki using profane language. Delgado asked Swiecicki to halt his behavior or leave the stadium. When Swiecicki did not respond, Delgado placed Swiecicki in the “escort position” and began leading him out of the bleachers. In the course of leaving the stadium, Delgado arrested Swiecicki and wrestled him to the ground.
At 2:
At all relevant times, Delgado, a City of Cleveland police officer, was working as a security guard and was stationed at a tunnel near the bleachers where Swiecicki and his friends were seated. Delgado was officially off-duty, but he was wearing his police uniform with his badge and was carrying the weapons issued by the police department.
At 6-7:
C. Delgado’s status as a state actor.
The district court also held that Delgado was not acting under color of state law until he actually placed Swiecicki under arrest. Swiecicki, on the other hand, argues that Delgado was acting under color of state law during the entire incident, and that the district court erroneously relied on disputed material facts in making its decision.
“To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff . . . must show that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001). Delgado, to be liable under § 1983, must have exercised power made possible “only because [he was] clothed with the authority of state law.” Id. at 533 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Whether a police officer like Delgado was acting under the color of state law poses a difficult question that depends on “the nature of the act performed, not the clothing of the actor or even the status of being on duty . . . .” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Relevant considerations include whether the officer flashed a badge, identified himself as an officer, or arrested (or threatened to arrest) someone. Parks v. City of Columbus, 395 F.3d 643, 652 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that an off-duty police officer acted under color of state law when he threatened a citizen with arrest at a local festival).
The parties agree that Delgado was off-duty at the time of the incident, even though he was wearing his police uniform and carrying his official weapons. As indicated by Redding, however, the nature of the act, rather than Delgado’s clothing, informs the state-actor analysis. Redding, 241 F.3d at 533. We must therefore consider Delgado’s behavior during the course of the incident, making sure to view the facts in the light most favorable to Swiecicki at this stage of the case. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
Swiecicki alleges that Delgado used police procedures and was therefore a state actor during the entire incident. According to Swiecicki and several witnesses, Delgado grabbed Swiecicki by the shirt and arm to escort him, and Delgado himself admits that he put Swiecicki in the “escort position” before forcibly removing him from the bleachers. The district court failed to acknowledge Swiecicki’s version of the facts, holding that “[a]lthough Officer Delgado may have been acting as a private actor when he began escorting Jeffrey Swiecicki out of the stadium pursuant to the rules and regulations of Jacobs Field, he asserted his official state power when he placed Jeffrey Swiecicki under arrest.” Despite this broad pronouncement, the district court never articulated why it concluded that Delgado was not a state actor when he first escorted Swiecicki out of the stands.
Here, we believe the record establishes that Delgado was a state actor from the beginning of the incident in question because he “presented himself as a police officer.” Parks, 395 F.3d at 652. Our conclusion is based not only on Delgado’s attire, badge, and weapons, but also on the fact that Delgado told Swiecicki that “[w]e can either do this the easy way or the hard way.” We recognize that these words, standing alone, would not necessarily rise to the level of a threatened arrest. After all, if a private citizen like Labrie, or a fellow Indians fan, had warned Swiecicki in a similar manner, no threat of arrest would have been present. And if Delgado had simply asked Swiecicki to calm down or risk being ejected from the game, we would be unable to conclude that Delgado acted under color of state law. See Watkins v. Oaklawn Jockey Club, 183 F.2d 440, 443 (8th Cir. 1950) (holding that an off-duty deputy sheriff who worked as a security guard at a race track was not acting under color of state law when he ejected a patron because the deputy sheriff acted in the same manner that a civilian employee of the track would have acted).
But we are required to consider all of the relevant circumstances. See Parks, 395 F.3d at 652 (“[A]ll of these factors combined create the presumption of state action.”). Rather than calmly asking Swiecicki to leave the stadium, Delgado, while wearing his uniform and carrying his official weapons, threatened Swiecicki and forcibly removed him from the bleachers. This evidence, combined with the fact that Delgado was hired by Jacobs Field to intervene “in cases requiring police action” suggests that his warning to Swiecicki amounted to a threat of arrest. Delgado apparently believed, moreover, that the incident was one requiring “police action” because he approached Swiecicki before Labrie had a chance to further investigate. In sum, this was more than a case in which a civilian employed by the Indians peaceably ejected an unruly fan from a baseball game—a procedure clearly contemplated by the rules and regulations of Jacobs Field. Delgado, in full police uniform, forcibly removed Swiecicki in the escort position.
All of this evidence, when considered together, indicates that Delgado was acting under color of state law at the time he removed Swiecicki from the bleachers. See id. at 652 (holding that the off-duty police officer was a state actor because he was in uniform, identified himself as an officer, and threatened arrest); see also Villegas v. City of Gilroy, 363 F. Supp.2d 1207, 1213 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (holding that an off-duty police officer who ejected citizens from a festival held at a public park acted under color of state law because her presence was intended to give “some air of authority as a police officer” and because she had “an active hand assisting in enforcing [the] dress code policy by intimidating Plaintiffs into leaving the festival.”) (quotation marks omitted). But see Herrera v. Chisox Corp., No. 93 C 4279, 1995 WL 599065, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 1995) (unpublished) (holding that off-duty deputy sheriffs did not act under color of state law when they allegedly arrested Herrera at a Chicago Whitesox game because the deputy sheriffs were not wearing their uniforms, did not carry official weapons, filed a Whitesox incident report rather than an arrest report, and did not accompany officers of the Chicago Police Department who took Herrera to the police station).
Delgado’s status as a state actor continued as he escorted Swiecicki through the tunnel. After removing Swiecicki from the bleachers, Delgado formally placed Swiecicki under arrest, wrestled him to the ground using the arm-bar technique, and attempted to handcuff him. Such actions were clearly carried out “with the authority of state law.” Redding, 241 F.3d at 533. We therefore hold that Delgado was a state actor for the duration of the incident. See Layne v. Sampley, 627 F.2d 12, 13 (6th Cir. 1980) (holding that the question of whether someone acted under the color of state law may be determined as a matter of law unless there remain unanswered questions of fact for the jury to decide).
If so, the offense was not trespassing, but disturbing the peace.
It's also not trespassing in a place of public accommodation until after someone is told they may not come. I suppose that may have been the point of the notice. Not a citation or claim any offense was committed, but just a "notice".
But still, given the girl was arrested, why wasn't disturbing the peace or some similar charge levelled related to the real reason for the stop, instead of resisting and assault?
The lot is private property and not a public thoroughway for the public to use as a shortcut to bypass the public roads.
The assertion is that Mall security wanted them removed for trespassing. They were to be given a notice to advise them that they were banned from mall property. Rather than give her information, the young lady decided to give a ration of shit and pedal away. She was stopped and arrested. The apparent reason for the arrest was resisting the lawful actions of the officer and assault on the officer. She was not arrested until after she tried to pedal away.
How do you know what reason was given in criminal proceedings for the initial stop? It is in proceedings against a minor.
How can you confirm any information from what happened in the criminal proceedings. I have been unable to find any citation to the case, the court, the judge, or the date of any proceeding in the case.
It is difficult to find any official information on the criminal case as Tillman was a minor.
The lawfirm representing Tillman released a public statement asserting "Officer Williams forcibly shoved Monique into parked cars, placing his forearm across her chest as he extracted his Taser. Heaping brutality upon indignity, Officer Williams grabbed Monique by the hair and flung her to ground. Not satisfied, Officer Williams deployed his Taser and stunned Monique before handcuffing her and charging her with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, charges which were ultimately dismissed." This provides no legal reasoning on why the charges were ultimately dismissed. I have yet to see any source provide a case citation or a date for the dismissal of charges, or identify what judge or court did this.
The counsel for Tillman does not enhance his credibility by saying Officer Williams, "forcibly shoved Monique into parked cars, placing his forearm across her chest as he extracted his Taser." The video clearly shows this occurred later, when Tillman was on the ground.
This appears to be just wrong and without any legal merit.
Simple question then. If it's wrong, then why isn't the city being sued by the family of the 15 year old? Why instead are they suing the cop, the mall, and the security company that is paying the cop?
Are the plaintiff's making a mistake? Or are they purposely avoiding bringing the city into the suit? Is the city broke?
There are a number of cities that have a formal program that allow their police officers to be serve as private security while they are in uniform. LA and NYC are but two of those cities. I don’t know the Tacoma police policy on this.
Off-duty cops work security pretty much all over the country. They obviously do it in Tacoma and elsewhere in the state of Washington.
Secure bigger profits with the savings on our Security and Patrol Insurance Program. Guard and patrol services (including off-duty police officers) providing armed or unarmed security personnel with or without animals. Firearms training and certification schools also eligible. No matter the size of your security guard company it is time to begin protecting your employees, your resources, and physical assets with general liability and commercial auto insurance.
Seattle Security Inc. specializes in providing Washington State Certified off-duty Seattle Police Officers for security and traffic control to private citizens and businesses in the Greater Seattle area. We operate as a hiring hall for the purpose of referring its officers to potential off-duty employers.
Seattle Police Officers provided to you by SSI are exceptional in their field. These men and women prove themselves on a daily basis. Seattle Police Officers also pride themselves in their professionalism and sense of duty.
Knowing that you hired police officers from SSI will give you the confidence that no matter how difficult the task it will be accomplished. In addition, you can feel confident and have the peace of mind knowing that a professional police officer is working for you.
Although our officers are working off-duty for you, we can assure you that if any police action is needed we are there. This allows for immediate action verses (sic) having a security guard call 911.
Remember there is a great difference between hiring security guards and hiring state certified police officers.
Thank you for your time, and we hope we can serve you.
And, of course, there is the statement of the Public Affairs Officer of the Tacoma Police Department:
Of the officer, [Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta] Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."
He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.
Rather than give her information, the young lady decided to give a ration of shit and pedal away.
Without audio, how do you know this to be the case? On further review, she may not have been trying to leave the scene, but only dismount from the bike, perhaps first manuvering out from between the 2 cops. If she was trying to leave, she certainly didn't try to get a jump start on them.
How do you know what reason was given in criminal proceedings for the initial stop? It is in proceedings against a minor.
My info is based on what's stated in the article here.
How can you confirm any information from what happened in the criminal proceedings. I have been unable to find any citation to the case, the court, the judge, or the date of any proceeding in the case.
I have not attempted to confirm anything. Like everyone else, I'm basing my judgement on the video and information on the article, bias though it is. If the information is different, I may modify my opinion accordingly.
HOW were the mall owners going to call tow trucks to tow off the kids bicycles that were just traveling THROUGH the parking lot?
More importantly,the trouble started with the mall employee,a thug with a badge,stopped the kids TO KEEP THEM FROM LEAVING.
They were not seeking to take the kids bikes and arrest the kids. They were seeking to serve a legal notice to stay off the private property of the mall owner.
A mall parking lot IS public property,and the only time the public is forbidden access to that property is when those INDIVIDUALS have broken some of the rules and management has told them to leave.
A privately owned mall parking lot is private property.
Officer Williams was on the public payroll, acting as a state actor and a police officer, from the second he was called on to order the yoots off the private property.
The officer clearly threw her to the ground with his left hand firmly holding her hair. The taser followed. In sum, it easily appeared to me as excessive force, and apart from what did appear to be an attempt by the girl to leave the scene, there is no obvious move of resistance to me through the rest of the ordeal.
It appears to be an officer using such force as necessary to restrain the yoot without injuring the yoot. The yoot was neither punched nor kicked, nor choked.
Perhaps you can suggest how the officer should have restrained the yoot.
But if a cop can kill out of reasonable fear for his own life, then that right has to apply to citizens as well.
If you are seriously a criminal asshole, and a cop points a gun at your head and orders you to get on the ground, hands behind your back, if you fear for your life that does not mean you can shoot and kill the cop and call it self-defence.
And the more cops are trained to shoot at the slightest provocation, the more reason informed citizens have to be fearful of cops who point guns at them.
Cops are not trained to shoot at the slightest provocation. If they were, the streets would be littered with countless bodies every day. The police are trained for restraint. The military on security duty are far more likely to open fire with deadly effect. My military training was to the effect that the only reason to pull a gun was to shoot it.
Okay, but in any event, since the city is not named as a defendant in the case, it's apparent that the cop was not acting in the capacity of a cop when working for the mall.
No, it is very obvious that the cop was acting in the capacity of a cop, a state actor.
Counsel is pretending that he was acting as a mall employee only. When acting in the capacity of a state actor, a police officer, the cop has qualified immunity from civil litigation.
A mall parking lot IS public property,and the only time the public is forbidden access to that property is when those INDIVIDUALS have broken some of the rules and management has told them to leave.
Blah,blah,blah. You are more full of shit than a Thanksgiving turkey.
The shopping mall parking lot is NOT public property, if it is privately owned.
I don't give a rabid rat's ass if he had been adopted by the corporation that owns the mall,the way the process works is that citizens call 9-11 to report a problem,9-11 notifies the cops on duty,and the cops on duty then respond to the 9-11 call.
You are a rabid rat's ass. The cop was working for the mall. The second he was called upon to perform police work, he shifted to the public payroll and was a state actor acting as a police officer.
That is the way the system works when the private mall hires an off duty cop to be there and available to provide police services for them.
Frankly,I don't begin to understand why the Tacoma PD is backing that fool,and leaving themselves and the city open to lawsuits.
The Complaint does not appear to raise any constitutional challenge or to assert any challenge to the arrest regarding probable cause.
The Complaint alleges Negligence; Assault; and Outrage against Officer Williams.
