Posted on 01/07/2015 7:43:17 AM PST by Altura Ct.
Update, Jan. 6: Davidson’s charge has been increased to aggravated assault on a public servant. That also means his bail amount for that offense has shot up to $125,000.
In response to an inquiry, AT&T spokeswoman Gabriela Andersson suggested in an emailed statement that cash was not the primary issue. The incident happened at an AT&T store.
“We accept cash from our customers,” she said. “However, we don’t discuss personal account details.”
She said any other questions would have to be handled by Dallas police.
Original post, Jan 5: Police say a 26-year-old Florida man beat an officer who tried to get him to leave a Far North Dallas cellphone store.
Thomas Landell Davidson of Lake Wales, Fla., has been charged with assaulting a public servant and criminal trespass. Police say the officer suffered multiple cuts and bruises and showed signs of a brain injury.
Police say Davidson tried to pay for three cellphones in cash Sunday at the wireless store in the 13700 block of Dallas Parkway. The cashier declined and asked Davidson to leave, making him upset, according to an arrest warrant affidavit.
The officer, who was working off-duty security at the store, walked over to Davidson and grabbed him by the arm to get him to leave, police said.
Police said the officer escorted Davidson out, pushed him out the doors and told him he was no longer welcome in the store. Police said that is when Davidson turned around and clocked the officer “at least three times.” Davidson is listed at 5-foot-10 and 225 pounds.
After throwing the punches, Davidson grabbed the cop’s uniform and pulled him outside, police said. The two tried to take each other down; Davidson succeeded.
(Excerpt) Read more at crimeblog.dallasnews.com ...
bump
“The officer, who was working off-duty security at the store”
If the officer was off-duty, then he’s not acting in an official capacity, and therefore should not be considered a “public servant” in this situation.
Davidson was in the wrong to assault him, but he should only face the charges he would be liable for if the security guard had been a “civilian”.
Telsa beams the stuff in ...
What in the hell are you talking about? This is literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this site. And I’ve been around for some time.
Yep, the officer assaulted him, if that is true, which could make this a self defense case.
OK, I must be missing something here. Thy way it’s reported, it sounds like this guy tried to pay with cash, then for no other reason, was denied service. Am I missing something?
“Davidson was in the wrong to assault him...”
The story says the security guard assaulted Davidson, by grabbing him and shoving him through a door. Someone does that to me, I have a right to defend myself.
“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”
At least that’s what I thought until 5-6 years. I tried to pay a bill at tOSU with cash. Nope. No way. I almost got escorted from the building. I well understand Mr. Davidson’s feelings, although I do not agree with his actions. Nor the LEO’s.
I would like to know why they refused to sell him the three phones.
Please. Think there’s a tiny chance there was some history between this guy and the store (or perhaps you want to take away the store’s right to decide how it runs it’s business)? And maybe some details left out as to what went on between being told to leave and having his arm grabbed?
Now, here's where it gets tricky, people: if a private business asks you to leave and you refuse, you're trespassing! At that point, someone hired by the store as a security guard has every legal right to use appropriate force to get you out of there. Think of a bouncer at a bar.
So this guy was removed and then decided to assault the cop. Is this scenario really that difficult to grasp?
See #32.
I think there was a reason, but political correctness might be preventing the store and/or the newspaper from specifically mentioning it.
Perhaps something the customer did or said led the sales person to believe or suspect that the phones were being purchased for illicit purposes (e.g. as “burn phones”)
In any event, businesses generally have the right to refuse service to anyone with or without a specific reason.
If the people managing that particular store did not want to sell the guy three cell phones for cash I’m sure some other cell phone store would be happy to have his business.
Wait for the full report.
I am sure we will see this innocent guy didn't simply walk in the store, pick up three phones, take them to the cashier, attempt to pay cash and was out-of-the-blue refused service asked to leave, and the officer just jumped in roughly to forcefully remove this quiet innocent SOB (Son of Barrack) from the store.
We always fuss about media bias and lack of facts when reporting on all things political, and rightfully so. I suggest we also view media reports on situations like this with the same critical eye.
Yep another cracker trouble maker.
I must live a sheltered life that a cell phone/wireless store needs a security officer?
“If the officer was off-duty, then he’s not acting in an official capacity”
Not exactly corect. “Off duty” officers remains a police officer and retain all police powers anmd authorty.
As long as the store did not discriminate based on race, religion, creed, etc it had every right to refuse service for any other reason. It may be bad customer service, but nothing criminal to refuse to serve the man.
Once the cashier asked the man to leave and he didn’t that became trespassing and it is perfectly legal in Texas to remove a trespasser by force. The security guard acted injudiciously but not illegally when he grabbed the man.
Personally I have two concerns here. First is that the off-duty cop’s first instinct was to manhandle an unruly customer which I have to figure is learned behavior from his time on the force. Second it worries me that the DA feels he can charge assault on a public servant even though the off duty cop was acting in a private capacity, as though mere membership in the police club makes you more important that the rest of the population.
Likely missing a lot of info. Media report is thin and with a particular agenda, I am sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.