Cops bust open face of Black Friday grandpa

The actions of the Police are a disgrace.
The man looked as though he was unconscious - then get the bloody handcuffs off.
Police have a duty of care for anyone in their custody.
Whatever he did or did not do - the duty of care by the officers was sadly lacking.

Actus reus (the action) & Mens rea (the thought) - these two components need to be present for a crime.
A person needs to leave the shop to prove shoplifting.
Concealment on its own does not prove the crime.

I hope the Police are publicly outed (there were witnesses recording the incident on phones).
I hope the Police are charged with lack of duty of care and negligence and assault and any other appropriate offence.

Police are supposed to serve and protect - can someone tell me who they are serving and protecting in this incident? It appears they are self serving and protecting a bloody video game. Shame on these Police I hope their faces and badge numbers are plastered all over the internet so they can be recognised and judged by the public because we all know the legal system is fraught with loopholes.

Much Peace...to people everywhere who are abused by people in positions of authority...

What if his grandson or something was coming and he didn't want him to know what he was getting him for Christmas? That justifies a beating?

Originally posted by Amanda5
A person needs to leave the shop to prove shoplifting.
Concealment on its own does not prove the crime.

Did you read the sites I linked? In Arizona concealment is a crime and is considered shoplifting, one does not need to leave the store with the concealed merchandise.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Yes I did see your post about concealment.
Do you have a list of the proofs required for the offence?
You need to satisfy the proofs before you can press charges and proceed to court.

A list of the proofs would open up another avenue of discussion.
Does the shop openly advertise the fact that concealed goods will give management the right to arrest?

Much Peace...

reply to post by brindle


he's an old man.... not every old person is trained in martial arts amigo

Originally posted by Amanda5
Do you have a list of the proofs required for the offence?
You need to satisfy the proofs before you can press charges and proceed to court.

I included, in my post, the salient points of the Arizona shoplifting law regarding concealment. I will repost it here again:

5. Concealment.

B. Any person who knowingly conceals upon himself or another person unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment while within the mercantile establishment is presumed to have the necessary culpable mental state pursuant to subsection A of this section. source

The bolded portion is the key part of the statute. Any concealment of merchandise can be construed as shoplifting as the Arizona law finds the person to be of a 'mental state' which could subsequently cause them to then leave the establishment. The act of concealment is in itself a crime and one does not necessarily need to leave the merchants place of business to be arrested for shoplifting.

A list of the proofs would open up another avenue of discussion.
Does the shop openly advertise the fact that concealed goods will give management the right to arrest?

Why would a shop owner need to advertise any laws in their place of business having to do with shoplifting (or any other criminal activity)?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


In Australia many shops, particularly supermarkets post signs that inform the customer that management have a right to check bags. Usually the bag check occurs at the checkout.

I understand your quote about the shoplifting and concealment. Should a person be taken to court the charge will need to have proofs. The sighting of the concealment means the person can be charged and the matter is heard by the Court. The Court will then need to know the proofs - mens rea - the intention of the person. In the case of this thread - the man was in the middle of a crowded sale - needed to free his hands to grab his grandson and keep him safe from the crowd - his intention was not to steal the item.

To prove the charge the Court will need to see mens rea married to his actus reus. So - if they want to charge on concealment alone they might not have a case. The concealment is the actus reus and without mens rea the Court can only surmise he was going to steal the item. The circumstances - if the report is correct - do not show a man standing on his own in an uncrowded shop trying to covertly conceal the item.

If a judge convicts this man then all I can say is I am glad I do not live in America and all Americans have my deepest concern at the state of your legal system - not that any legal system anywhere on the planet is actually working correctly!

Much Peace...

Further to my above post- law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal-code/13-1805.html

Read through Section C and note the use of the word reasonable.
Also note that the concealment - only allows the merchant to arrest for a reasonable time in a reasonable manner to question the person - while on the premises.

I still don't see how a Court could convict the man who at the centre of discussion in this thread if the information presented is correct. The proofs would have to be found in the questioning while detained in the shop. Again I impress upon you to consider - he was in a crowded shop during a sale - not alone looking suspicious. He has a version of events and they should have been considered. The law is meant to protect everyone not just be an excuse to violate the freedom of people and allow Police to be thugs.

Much Peace...

Regardless of whether the man is found guilty or not, the cop that caused his injuries was breaking the law by tackling him after he was cuffed and arrested.... It is not the duty of law enforcement officers to judge and administer punishment but the duty of the judicial branch of the government.... I have a big problem with people that can't see that what happened and is happening all of the time with police officers abusing peoples rights by inflicting injuries upon them for no justifiable reason is wrong.

reply to post by hypervigilant


In Australia I have seen citizens take on the Police and win.
More people need to push through the legal system and make it work for them.

In the video I see clearly an officer putting handcuffs on a man who is unconscious - that is barbaric let alone criminal. When I was an officer - I would have hit the roof if my partner put handcuffs on a person who was injured I would not have let it happen.

What is wrong with the Police? They are not judge, jury and executioner - they are peacekeepers and protectors or at least that's what they are supposed to be.

Much Peace...

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


What the hell are you trying to argue here?

Let's just say you are 100% in what you are pushing. He was guilty of shoplifting due to the act of concealment.
Cool.
The cop is guilty of assault due to the act of assault.

Which crime is worse and what is the case you are trying so hard to make?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Amanda5
A person needs to leave the shop to prove shoplifting.
Concealment on its own does not prove the crime.

Did you read the sites I linked? In Arizona concealment is a crime and is considered shoplifting, one does not need to leave the store with the concealed merchandise.

Is assault a crime in AZ?
Does one not need be cuffed when assaulted for it to be a crime in AZ?
I honestly do not know but you seem very interested in it.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


You can put the merchandise anywhere you like and it is only a crime if you try to leave without paying.
So what he did was still legal at that point.

Ever open a soda at a store and start drinking it? (i do all the time)
Should you have your head split open the moment you do? (didn't think so)

Originally posted by Amanda5
In Australia many shops, particularly supermarkets post signs that inform the customer that management have a right to check bags. Usually the bag check occurs at the checkout.

That has nothing to do with Arizona's concealment law.

I understand your quote about the shoplifting and concealment. Should a person be taken to court the charge will need to have proofs. The sighting of the concealment means the person can be charged and the matter is heard by the Court. The Court will then need to know the proofs - mens rea - the intention of the person.

According to the Arizona law the intention, once someone conceals merchandise, is to dperive the merchant of their property. It is quite clear.

In the case of this thread - the man was in the middle of a crowded sale - needed to free his hands to grab his grandson and keep him safe from the crowd - his intention was not to steal the item.

That is what he will claim, however there are differing accounts of the incident.

To prove the charge the Court will need to see mens rea married to his actus reus. So - if they want to charge on concealment alone they might not have a case. The concealment is the actus reus and without mens rea the Court can only surmise he was going to steal the item.

Again, the Arizona law extrapolates that if you conceal merchandise then you are of mind and intent to steal. There is no further exptrapolation. Once merchandise is concealed that act of shoplifting has been committed.

The circumstances - if the report is correct - do not show a man standing on his own in an uncrowded shop trying to covertly conceal the item.

The 'circumstances' are seen from a point after the merchandise was concealed and is not complete. Only the store video recordings will have the complete account of the event.

If a judge convicts this man then all I can say is I am glad I do not live in America and all Americans have my deepest concern at the state of your legal system - not that any legal system anywhere on the planet is actually working correctly!

I think he will not be convicted, not because he did nothing wrong (he did), but because he got the crap knocked out of him for shoplifting and the event has since become highly sensationlized and polarized.

Further to my above post- law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal-code/13-1805.html

Read through Section C and note the use of the word reasonable.
Also note that the concealment - only allows the merchant to arrest for a reasonable time in a reasonable manner to question the person - while on the premises.

It does not allow the merchant to arrest anyone. It allows the merchant, or his agent, to detain the supsect resonably or to summon the proper law enforcement personel (which happened to be working off-duty in the establishment in question). The man was detained in a reasonble time, the issue is was he detained in a reasonable manner. If he was not resisting then he most certainly was not, if he was resisting then he is doubly stupid, once for cramming other people's goods in his clothes and once for resisting a police officer. If he is found to have been cooperative then punishment shoud be meted out to those who caused him injury.

I still don't see how a Court could convict the man who at the centre of discussion in this thread if the information presented is correct. The proofs would have to be found in the questioning while detained in the shop. Again I impress upon you to consider - he was in a crowded shop during a sale - not alone looking suspicious. He has a version of events and they should have been considered. The law is meant to protect everyone not just be an excuse to violate the freedom of people and allow Police to be thugs.

You are only repeating what little we have all heard on the incident. The only way this can be cleanyl resolved is to view the store's survelliance camera that captured the exchange.

Originally posted by KendraSins
Is assault a crime in AZ?

Do you always ask questions you either already know the answer to or are quite obvious?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
You can put the merchandise anywhere you like and it is only a crime if you try to leave without paying.
So what he did was still legal at that point.

Apparently you did not read the Arizona shoplifting law that was linked. It is considered shoplifting once you conceal the item and you can be arrested on the spot.

Ever open a soda at a store and start drinking it? (i do all the time)

Or eat some grapes? Or half a sandwhich? Or part of a bag of potato chips? All of these are technically illegal in some places but a store will probably not give you a hard time unless you attempt to walk out without paying.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

According to the Arizona law the intention, once someone conceals merchandise, is to dperive the merchant of their property. It is quite clear.

As I understand law, the intent to shoplift once an item is concealed is a preliminary assumption... enough to allow for detainment and arrest, and if no reasonable defense is offered at trial, then enough to convict. However, the purpose of a court is to judge actions according to the law and mete out punishment as is appropriate. A court may easily and completely legally accept an explanation that shoplifting was not the intent, and according to some interpretations of the law, is actually bound to duly consider such.

Now, whether or not his explanation (assuming he has one) is accepted by the court is another matter entirely. That will depend upon evidence we do not have available: store cameras, eyewitness reports under oath, etc.

In essence, all this Arizona statute does is shift the burden of proof to the defendant if his actions were to conceal merchandise.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As I understand law, the intent to shoplift once an item is concealed is a preliminary assumption...

Exactly. It allows for reasonable stop and detainment until authorized law enforcement can be summoned to the merchant's location. The defendant is obviously free to argue, under due process, that their intent in concealing the merchandise was not to shoplift.

The seriousness of the incident now rests on whether the person in question was resisiting when detained or was unnecessarily and forceably injured in the process of complying. I agree that video evidence will most definetly be required.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


As I said already the part A applies first. There has to be intent before part B, the method is even applied. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by KendraSins
Is assault a crime in AZ?

Do you always ask questions you either already know the answer to or are quite obvious?

No. I apparently do not know the answer. I thought I did until I read your posts. You keep trying to paint the picture that this man was guilty of a crime all while completely ignoring the fact that the cop is also guilty of a crime. Now, going by your posts, apparently the cop is innocent and assault must not be against the law. Which is it?

I am guessing this is why you only responded to part of my post.