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 ...
Assaulting the poeleece, this boy is going to Huntsville and I hear they issue a tube of Vaseline down there upon admittance.
Well, it’s for a jury to decide, whether the security guard was justified in using force, and whether the force used was appropriate to the situation.
However, any time you initiate violence and put hands on someone, you give them a reason to fear for their safety, and that creates grounds for a self defense claim.
The article does not say that Davidson asked for account information on a third party. It just says that the store does not give that information out. We have to do a lot of assuming here. Truth is, the article does not give enough information for us to know what really happened.
Yeah, right after they prosecute all the airlines for refusing to take cash for cocktails during flights.
Did the cashman use a different dialect and odd words with nasty meanings as he demanded the clerk take his cash for his crackphones? Holder’s people are supposed to be allowed to use any language, any cursing they want, in public, anytime they want and we the people are commanded to tolerate the filthy these chimps sling about ... how embarrassing it must be for our fellow Americans who are black.
“Guess he didn’t know having cash is a crime”
No, not leaving a private business property when asked to is the crime. Read the article and you will see that AT&T said, his having cash was not the issue.
They do take cash. Whatever happened, they told him to leave and he didn't.
And stop being dramatic. Grabbing someone's arm is not assault. Legally, it's not assault. At least not in my state. And I'd bet not in TX either.
“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.”
You said it, brother.
Any reasonable person who was refused service by a store selling goods that are easily obtained from another store would take advantage of the free market and simply go to that other store.
Key word above: REASONABLE. There is something missing in the story that will make all of the “HE DINDU NUFFINS” people feel really stupid once it’s revealed.
And take this from me, since I work on cellphone theft-deterrent systems for stores as my second job: if you can’t find a cellphone store in a minority-dominated neighborhood, you’re blind as a bat. Just click the link below to pull up cellphone stores on Google maps within a mile of the one where the incident occurred.
Surprise surprise! Another one of Obama’s feral sea-urchin sons......
I will post this again since in TX you are incorrect and people really need to understand the law before commenting on it...
The business is PRIVATE property and can refuse to business with anyone for any reason and can demand that anyone leave their private property at anytime for any reason. Refusal to leave someone else’s private property is trespassing and is a crime. If the person is wrongfully ordered off the premises (for say like being black or gay) then the person has civil recourse against the company. However, the person is still required to leave the property or face criminal prosecution.
The cop in TX is still a cop whether on or off duty 24/7. Although TX does have security guards (rent-a-cops), in this case the cop was not just a ‘rent-a-cop’. Most likely he was working security in full uniform as well since that is standard practice in TX. He has every right to escort this thug off of the premises, even if by force under TX law since the thug is violating criminal trespass laws. In fact, under TX law, the cop had every right to arrest the thug for trespassing if he refused to leave. The cop was giving the thug a chance to leave rather than go to jail.
I was being facetious.
I’ll meet you part way on that, when the use of force you are defending against is unlawful or dangerously excessive. But you cannot honestly read that in this situation. He got ejected. He retaliated. That is not self defense and no jury should buy into any claim of immediate threat that justified the attack he launched.
Getting dissed or getting a bruised ego is no legal justification for throwing punches.
“But you cannot honestly read that in this situation.”
As the story is written, I sure can. If they really shoved him through the door, that’s excessive, because there is no need for it. You could simply open the door, and push them outside without ramming them into the door.
Perhaps that’s not how it happened, and just the imagination of the writer, but as written, it sounds excessive to me.
I see you are taking your lumps with this post.
I knew I would, but the story seems to be lacking a lot of important details. If the guard assaulted him for no apparent reason other than to get him to leave, then The Guard should be prosecuted.
The problem I have is, I DO NOT TRUST THE POLICE to ever be truthful anymore, I have seen way too many out and out LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH for some of the dumbest reasons. So I am to the point that if there is not a Video detailing everything that happened, I have “reasonable doubt” to disbelieve just about everything the cop says.
At least there were no, ‘strings’, attached to the deal.
This probably came out of the, ‘future crimes’, division of law enforcement as these phones were obviously destined for use in arranging drug deals...
You are the only one with a reasoned response for the most part. Unfortunately without a video I would never believe the cop for any reason whatsoever. Pretty sad, but I have seen too much in my life to ever have faith in the police anymore to be honest ever.
I agree that the police have earned a healthy amount of distrust but I have recently had my knee jerk reactions (I called them gut feelings at the time) lead me to the wrong conclusion during the Wilson/Brown shooting. In this case my gut is telling me that the customer was being an unruly a-hole and that the cop responded by also being an a-hole which escalated the whole thing. I have learned however to reserve final judgement until I see video or at least get some credible witness testimony.
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.