Florida Neighborhood Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
airportcop said:
If Zimmerman were in fact being attacked by Martin then there may be justification for the shooting in self defense.
Click to expand...

no. if there was no crime in the first place, Martin had rights to self-defense first. not Zimmerman.
 
here we go -

CHRISTOPHER CHASE SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFF LANDRITH, in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Mustang, a Political Subdivision of Oklahoma; MONTE L. JAMES, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Mustang Police Department; CAMIE McNEIL, in her official capacity; KIRK DICKERSON, in his individual and official capacities; CLIFF DACUS, in his individual and official capacities; TERRY DWYANE TAYLOR, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-6234

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

315 Fed. Appx. 62; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3957

February 26, 2009, Filed

BACKGROUND
Factual Basis
On May 17, 2004, seventeen-year-old Chase Spencer and a friend spent time together in Edmond, Oklahoma. Their activities included drinking beer. Mr. Spencer then drove to Mustang, where the friend lived. While Mr. Spencer was driving his truck around Mustang, the friend threw two beer bottles onto the lawn of defendant Terry Dwyane Taylor. In his car, Mr. Taylor chased Mr. Spencer's truck, catching up with him outside the friend's home. Mr. Spencer dropped off the friend and, alone in the truck, he attempted to elude Mr. Taylor.

Notwithstanding [**3] Mr. Spencer's driving efforts, Mr. Taylor passed the truck and forced it off the road. He broke the truck window, grabbed Mr. Spencer, put him into the car, and sped back to his house. There, Mr. Taylor placed Mr. Spencer under a self-described "citizen's arrest." In the process, he handcuffed him, knocked him to the ground, punched him in the head, dragged him across a driveway, and planted a foot on his neck.
[*64] On Mr. Taylor's instructions, the Mustang police were called. Defendants Dacus and Dickerson, who were familiar with Mr. Taylor from previous domestic-disturbance incidents, arrived at Mr. Taylor's front lawn. After removing Mr. Taylor's handcuffs from Mr. Spencer's wrists, an officer walked Mr. Spencer toward his patrol car. Noticing the smell of alcohol and observing that Mr. Spencer was unsteady on his feet, with glassy eyes, Officer Dacus administered a roadside sobriety test. He determined that Mr. Spencer's responses indicated intoxication. Officer Dacus handcuffed Mr. Spencer and placed him in a patrol vehicle. Attempting to sort out the situation, the officers interviewed Mr. Taylor, who contended that he had placed Mr. Spencer under citizen's arrest for Driving Under [**4] the Influence (DUI). Mr. Spencer, however, declined to provide any information other than his name. Officer Dacus took Mr. Spencer into custody, based on a citizen's arrest.

At the police station, Officer Dacus administered a breathalizer test. The results indicated that Mr. Spencer's blood alcohol level was .01, which meant he was not legally intoxicated under Oklahoma's general DUI rules. 1 Within two hours after his seizure by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Spencer was released to his father. The next morning he sought medical care for contusions, abrasions, and cervical strain received during the citizen's arrest. His physician prescribed rest, an anti-inflammatory, and a painkiller.

The City of Mustang did not charge Mr. Spencer with any criminal conduct arising from the incident, although it cited his friend for throwing the bottles. In a subsequent inquiry, Defendant McNeil, a police investigator, determined that Mr. Taylor's manhandling of Mr. Spencer did not occur in the context of a proper citizen's arrest. Mr. Taylor was ultimately convicted of misdemeanor destruction of property and assault and battery.
Later, Mr. Spencer filed suit seeking redress under several Oklahoma tort provisions and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint named as defendants the mayor of Mustang, the chief [**6] of police, the two police officers present at the Taylor home, the police investigator, and Mr. Taylor. The complaint asserted claims for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; false arrest; abuse of process; libel and slander; assault and battery; intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; false imprisonment; and constitutional torts. The City defendants sought summary judgment. For his part, Mr. Spencer filed a partial summary-judgment motion. Defendant Taylor did not respond to the other parties' filings.
Click to expand...

WINSTON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-16113

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

437 F.3d 1112; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 223


January 27, 2006, Decided
January 27, 2006, Filed

BACKGROUND
Johnson's lawsuit arose from an incident at a Barnes & Noble store while he was there to purchase a compact disk and a book. At trial, Johnson testified that after purchasing the compact disk, he asked a female clerk for assistance in locating the book. As the store clerk stooped down to retrieve a book from [**2] the bottom of the shelf, she, or her shirt, was touched by Johnson. Johnson claimed that he was merely trying to help the store clerk with her shirt, which she was trying to reach in order to tuck it in, while the store clerk maintained that Johnson inappropriately grabbed her buttocks. The store clerk left Johnson and reported to her supervisors that Johnson had touched her inappropriately. Although not having observed the incident, two store managers and a security guard approached Johnson, accused him of having touched the store employee inappropriately, which Johnson adamantly denied, and then escorted Johnson to an office where he was detained for one to two hours. During this detention, he was interrogated, photographed and subjected to racially discriminatory remarks. When [*1115] the police arrived, they questioned Johnson about the incident, returned his ID and driver's license, which had been taken from him by the Barnes & Noble employees, and told him to leave the store. Johnson was not arrested.

Johnson subsequently filed suit against Barnes & Noble, claiming false imprisonment. 1 The jury returned a verdict, finding Barnes & Noble liable for falsely imprisoning Johnson and awarding [**3] Johnson $ 117,000. In a post-verdict motion for a new trial, Barnes & Noble argued that the jury was erroneously instructed and that the verdict was excessive. The district court upheld the jury's verdict and denied the motion for a new trial. Barnes & Noble now appeals.
Click to expand...

32 Am. Jur. 2d False Imprisonment § 36
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
Database updated February 2012
False Imprisonment
Jack K. Levin, J.D.
I. Civil Actions
C. Liability of Particular Persons
1. In General
Topic Summary Correlation Table References
§ 36. Persons effecting arrest or imprisonment

Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Pleadings and instructions concerning false arrest or imprisonment by private individual, False Imprisonment §§ 15 to 51

Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Pleadings and instructions relating to arrest by law enforcement officer, False Imprisonment §§ 65 to 74, 76 to 93

False arrest may be committed by a law enforcement officer, or one who claims the power to make an arrest.1 A private person2 or a police officer3 who effects an arrest may be held liable. A citizen’s arrest, even if authorized by statute, may nonetheless result in liability for false imprisonment4 if it does not comply with all of the statute’s requirements.5 However, to hold a private individual liable, it must be shown that the individual restrained the plaintiff before the police arrived.6 A peace officer who accepts custody of a person following a citizen’s arrest is not required to determine whether the arrest was justified, and may not be held liable if the arrest was improper.7

A school truant or attendance officer may be held liable for false imprisonment for taking a child into custody who was not truant within the meaning of a statute authorizing arresting truants without warrant.8
Click to expand...

119 Cal.App.4th 1128
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.
Steven KESMODEL, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Michael L. RAND et al., Defendants and Appellants.
No. B165072. | June 28, 2004.

Background: Apartment building tenant sued neighbors for false imprisonment and conspiracy after they falsely claimed he was a “peeping Tom” and placed him under citizen’s arrest. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC259128, Emilie H. Elias, J., entered judgment on jury verdict for tenant, awarding him economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages. Neighbors appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Johnson, Acting P.J., held that:
[1] citizen’s arrest was conduct, not communication, and thus was not protected by absolute statutory privilege afforded to citizen reports of suspected criminal activity to law enforcement personnel;
[2] neighbor who did not sign citizen’s arrest form was properly found liable as coconspirator for false imprisonment; and
[3] neighbors were properly found jointly and severally liable as coconspirators for noneconomic damages.

Affirmed
Click to expand...

bottom line - do not effectuate a citizen's arrest physically... it's just a floodgate to criminal and civil liability. simply call 911 and keep observing. do not touch them. do not pursue if you are instructed not to do so by 911 dispatcher.

Zimmerman broke all laws. no crime had actually occurred. Trayvon was within his legal rights to defend himself from Zimmerman.
 
Jiro said:
here we go -









bottom line - do not effectuate a citizen's arrest physically... it's just a floodgate to criminal and civil liability. simply call 911 and keep observing. do not touch them. do not pursue if you are instructed not to do so by 911 dispatcher.

Zimmerman broke all laws. no crime had actually occurred. Trayvon was within his legal rights to defend himself from Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

That is what Zimmerman did. He called 911 and observed. What caused the confrontation is anyone's guess, but, his attorney is stating that it was not an act of racism nor was the confrontation antagonized by Zimmerman. He was doing his job as neighborhood watchdog, so until full details are released, Zimmerman gets a benefit of a doubt from me.
 
After read whole article, I decided to favor for Trayvon Martin.

Justice for Trayvon Martin...
 
Steinhauer said:
That is what Zimmerman did. He called 911 and observed.
Click to expand...
yes and he did not listen to dispatcher when he/she said "you do not have to do that?" when Zimmerman wanted to chase after him.

Steinhauer said:
What caused the confrontation is anyone's guess, but, his attorney is stating that it was not an act of racism nor was the confrontation antagonized by Zimmerman. He was doing his job as neighborhood watchdog, so until full details are released, Zimmerman gets a benefit of a doubt from me.
Click to expand...
no he did not do his job as Neighborhood Watchdog. In fact, he violated just about everything that Neighborhood Watch program had taught him. I have never heard of armed Neighborhood Watchdog. That's just asking for criminal and civil liability. If a private citizen wants to be armed and do a neighborhood watch duty... why not simply sign up for police officer job? Steven Seagal did that.

I have no doubt that Zimmerman isn't racist but the cause of confrontation is not an issue in here since crime had never been committed when Zimmerman thought Trayvon stole something.

You're failing to understand that Zimmerman has absolutely NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION to begin with since NO CRIME had ever occurred. Trayvor never committed any crime. He never stole anything. Therefore.... Trayvon was within his legal rights of self-defense when Zimmerman chased after him and if physical altercation did occur.

Why Zimmerman wasn't arrested or charged with anything when Trayvor never committed any crime? I do not know. That's why Zimmerman and Police Department are in serious trouble.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Laws don't kill people, people kill people. Again, you cannot, "cover up" someone who confesses, think about it.
Click to expand...

The cops did not do their job! They did not get any evidence from the crime scene! Think about that!! How would you feel if this was one of your love one and the cops handled the case the same way!! If it was me I would be demanding some answers !
 
Jiro said:
exactly what we're waiting for to find out.

but right now - it doesn't really matter much. there was no probable cause nor actual crime so Zimmerman had no legal justification to effectuate a citizen's arrest and shooting to begin with. My crystal ball says... Zimmerman is going to be criminally charged with manslaughter, brandishing/displaying gun in public, and some more.
Click to expand...

How do you find out when the cops let Zimmerman walk away free? There is nothing to go by only what Zimmerman said. And that already happen.
 
Jiro said:
yes and he did not listen to dispatcher when he/she said "you do not have to do that?" when Zimmerman wanted to chase after him.


no he did not do his job as Neighborhood Watchdog. In fact, he violated just about everything that Neighborhood Watch program had taught him. I have never heard of armed Neighborhood Watchdog. That's just asking for criminal and civil liability. If a private citizen wants to be armed and do a neighborhood watch duty... why not simply sign up for police officer job? Steven Seagal did that.

I have no doubt that Zimmerman isn't racist but the cause of confrontation is not an issue in here since crime had never been committed when Zimmerman thought Trayvon stole something.

You're failing to understand that Zimmerman has absolutely NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION to begin with since NO CRIME had ever occurred. Trayvor never committed any crime. He never stole anything. Therefore.... Trayvon was within his legal rights of self-defense when Zimmerman chased after him and if physical altercation did occur.

Why Zimmerman wasn't arrested or charged with anything when Trayvor never committed any crime? I do not know. That's why Zimmerman and Police Department are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

The head of police department stepped down really fast , that has to made you wonder if he know something and does not want to talk.
 
Foxrac said:
After read whole article, I decided to favor for Trayvon Martin.

Justice for Trayvon Martin...
Click to expand...

Before all the facts are out? Interesting.

I prefer Justice for All. Due process and whatnot.
 
Jiro said:
yes and he did not listen to dispatcher when he/she said "you do not have to do that?" when Zimmerman wanted to chase after him.


no he did not do his job as Neighborhood Watchdog. In fact, he violated just about everything that Neighborhood Watch program had taught him. I have never heard of armed Neighborhood Watchdog. That's just asking for criminal and civil liability. If a private citizen wants to be armed and do a neighborhood watch duty... why not simply sign up for police officer job? Steven Seagal did that.

I have no doubt that Zimmerman isn't racist but the cause of confrontation is not an issue in here since crime had never been committed when Zimmerman thought Trayvon stole something.

You're failing to understand that Zimmerman has absolutely NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION to begin with since NO CRIME had ever occurred. Trayvor never committed any crime. He never stole anything. Therefore.... Trayvon was within his legal rights of self-defense when Zimmerman chased after him and if physical altercation did occur.

Why Zimmerman wasn't arrested or charged with anything when Trayvor never committed any crime? I do not know. That's why Zimmerman and Police Department are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Was it his right to carry concealed? Are you claiming to know what nobody else knows (i.e. how it all went down)? How do you know Trayvor never committed a crime - were you there?
 
TXgolfer said:
Before all the facts are out? Interesting.

I prefer Justice for All. Due process and whatnot.
Click to expand...

The article has enough information and Jiro explains so deeply.

For second, good for you.
 
Foxrac said:
The article has enough information and Jiro explains so deeply.

For second, good for you.
Click to expand...

What if the article is wrong???... It happens ya know. Police reports are often amended as well.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
The cops did not do their job! They did not get any evidence from the crime scene! Think about that!! How would you feel if this was one of your love one and the cops handled the case the same way!! If it was me I would be demanding some answers !
Click to expand...

So do I, better answers and more clear. I've no doubt the investigation could be handle better. Let's say for a moment that this was done and the investigation supported Zimmerman, would that make a difference? I think not, because people have already made up their mind, damn the evidence.
 
TXgolfer said:
What if the article is wrong???... It happens ya know. Police reports are often amended as well.
Click to expand...

No idea about what's going and I feel latest article is most accurate.

For Martin case, both of Zimmerman and police department are in serious trouble.

The lawyer said about stand your ground law doesn't apply to Martin case, even I'm disturbed that Martin is only 17 years old got shot by adult as self-defense since Martin hadn't everything but chase and try to hit him as self-defense.
Lawyer: Family of Trayvon Martin to pursue civil case - CNN.com
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly, so why choose a side. Denying Due Process is without a doubt an injustice.
Click to expand...

I chose a side because article and Jiro's post are clear and accurate.
 
First there is "common sense" (see Obama's Legacy post 205) and then there is: "I choose side because article and Jiro's post are clear and accurate."

Excuse me while I go find a dictionary and look up "common sense".
 
rolling7 said:
First there is "common sense" (see Obama's Legacy post 205) and then there is: "I choose side because article and Jiro's post are clear and accurate."

Excuse me while I go find a dictionary and look up "common sense".
Click to expand...

Both of my posts are not related, just different way.

You need stop trolling me into wrong direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top