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:29736 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.
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.
This shopping center parking lot belonged to the mall owner and was private property.
HorseHillary.
This shopping center parking lot belonged to the mall owner and was private property.
Privately owned property is private property. It is not public property, however much you blabber your delusion.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Public property. This term is commonly used as a designation of those things which are publici juris (q.v.), and therefore considered as being owned by "the public," the entire state or community, and not restricted to the dominion of a private person. It may also apply to any subject of property owned by a state, nation, or municipal corporation as such.
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?
The police officer was working the parking lot as a hired security officer. The mall management has direct contact with its security officers. He knew what was happening because the mall management told him and instructed him what to do.
Tasered teen: 'It felt like electricity running through my veins'
By Elisa Jaffe KOMOnews.com Tuesday, February 10th, 2015
[...]
Of the officer, 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.
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?
Ah, when you are losing a debate … invoke Goodwin’s law.
Godwin's law, or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler increases … sooner or later someone will compare someone to Hitler or Nazism.
Not surprising that you just did … so typical of you to do so.
All that education,and not a speck of common sense or humanity.
How long have you had the problem of carrying on a discussion with educated people?
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?
The employer has to pay the police for the car and gas.
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.
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.”
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.
Check out video at about 1:06. You'll see he's got his other arm (right) which does appear to be at the girl's throat. Because the camera was panning them back into view, it's only visible for a second before the cop lowers his hand to her upper chest. We cannot tell how long his hand was at or near her throat.
Just because he was not choking the girl at 1:18 does not prove he was not choking her at 1:06. You are obviously bias in favor of the cops, which is fine, but certainly you know better than to say the still photo proves a negative.
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 people may be ordered to leave and not come back. The people are welcome to enter to use the private property for the purpose for which it was intended, with good behavior.
But people may be ordered to leave and not come back.
But not unilaterally. Disinviting orientals from mall property would generate a discrimination lawsuit in a heartbeat, which is not the case for a homeowner having a private party.
So even though mall property is private, the owners of the property are limited in who and for what reasons people could be barred from entering.
The people are welcome to enter to use the private property for the purpose for which it was intended, with good behavior.
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?
Because if they admit that the officer was acting in an official capacity, he has qualified immunity from civil suit. They don't think they can win suing the city.
Look at the Complaint. The Complaint does not appear to raise any constitutional challenge or to assert any challenge to the arrest regarding probable cause. The city already acted to clear Officer Williams and stated he could have lawfully used more force.
The Complaint alleges Negligence; Assault; and Outrage against Officer Williams.
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?
The video and her statement to KOMO News in 2015.
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.
Check out video at about 1:06. You'll see he's got his other arm (right) which does appear to be at the girl's throat.
At 1:06 it is too fuzzy for me to clearly see. At 1:07 it appears his hand is on her throat. At 1:08 it appears his hand has been lowered to approximately where it is seen at 1:18.
Tasered teen: 'It felt like electricity running through my veins'
By Elisa Jaffe KOMOnews.com Tuesday, February 10th, 2015
[excerpt]
The officer looks to take out a note pad to write down information. Tillman said she didn't have identification and thought she was being racially profiled and told the officer that. Before the officer could write anything down, Tillman admits she tried to ride away. That's when he grabbed her.
"I did have a bit of an attitude, but that's because it was a waste of my time. I hadn't done anything wrong," she said.
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.
"I felt like they just see me as some black kid wanting to cause problems or something. And it was nothing like that," said the 11th grader.
The report claims Tillman, who says she's a straight A student at Bates Technical High School, became belligerent, swearing, screaming, and resisting until she was Tased by the Tacoma officer.
Or, as Matt Agorist puts it in the main thread article,
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.
I suppose one may look at the video and see a yoot calmly explaining that she had done nothing wrong, and that they do it all the time. The video I see shows the yoot, who by her own admission, had a bit of an attitude, and decided to just pedal away.
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.
I provide no excuses for anyone. You are resorting to throwing around rhetoric without any bases. Since you have chosen to have a value premise, then you need to show me where “there is a lie I have told and truth I have stretched.”
If you can’t do this, then you need to stop with the unfounded accusations. There would be no need for your ad hominem attack on my character if you would familiarize yourself more with the case at hand and attack the substance itself … not me.
The mall owners, the owners of the private property mall parking lot, were never going to call tow trucks to tow off the kids bicycles.
Are you sure of that. Looks to me like they were prepared to call in air strikes.
After all,it was private property and they were being invaded,right?
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.
I know you specialize in being an anal even for someone that loves to pick nits,but show me ONE example of a open mall with "No trespassing" signs designed to keep the public out without written or oral permission.
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 police officer was working the parking lot as a hired security officer. The mall management has direct contact with its security officers. He knew what was happening because the mall management told him and instructed him what to do.
How did mall management know. Are they psycic?
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.
