Regarding the beer thieves - Jim Carrey said it best
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/376309…

Such a Petty Crime? Attempting to take property with a small value without force is misdemeanor Theft. Attempting to take property, regardless of value, with the threatened or use of force is felony Robbery. The alleged thieves threw some of the beer at store employees when confronted, making this felony robbery, not theft that police were investigating. The lone officer was seeking two felony suspects in the dark.

The Stranger runs down below, when it is lawful to use deadly force in self-defense. The same standards apply to citizens and non-citizen alike.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Officers have the right to defend themselves against "great personal injury" or death, with deadly force, WHEN WARRANTED (which it is too early to know here), when attempting to detain or arrest suspects in the performance other their duties. Let's wait and see all of the available facts before jumping to conclusions about whether the officer acted reasonably and lawfully before we hit protest mode.

From the Olympia Police Blotter

Donut Thief Arrested, Trespassed

Friday, May 15th

On May 15, 2015, officers were dispatched to a theft at the Haggen’s grocery store on the westside. A man had left without paying for items he consumed while in the store.

Twenty-eight-year-old Michael Riddleburger was seen eating a donut from the bakery as he walked through the store. Employees then witnessed him remove a Coke from a fridge and start to drink it. When told he needed to pay for the items, he stated that the Coke was terrible, returned it to the refrigerator and proceeded to leave without paying.

Employees informed officers that Riddleburger had been contacted several times throughout the week for similar circumstances. He would use store products without buying them and become aggressive when confronted by the manger.

Officers searched the surrounding area and located Riddleburger at a restaurant nearby. He was arrested for theft and booked at the Olympia Police Department Jail. He was also trespassed from Haggen’s property and told he could not return.

http://www.theolympian.com/2015/05/21/37…

Theft, with multiple priors.

Subject given a light wrist slap.

Can anyone give us the ethnicity of Michael Riddleburger

More from the Police Blotter of Olympia

Suspect Arrested for Vandalism to Police Car

Sunday, May 10th

Around two in the morning on May 10, 2015, witnesses saw a man vandalizing the Downtown Walking Patrol’s vehicle. They located the officers to inform them of the vandalism.

Witnesses saw the suspect, twenty-five-year-old Chaske Lindgren, tear the passenger side mirror off the patrol car and slam it into the windshield. He kicked the car and threw a garbage can at it. One witness was in his car nearby and started honking his horn to try and get Lindgren to stop.

With assistance from a witness, the officers located Lindgren walking a couple blocks away from the incident. Walking Patrol called out for Lindgren to stop, but after looking at the officers, he continued to walk away. As officers attempted to detain Lindgren for questioning, he resisted their grasp while swearing and pulling away from them. Both officers restrained him, but were not able to cuff him until back up arrived.

While waiting, Lindgren started kicking one of the officers in the shins and stomping on his feet.. Once other officers arrived and Lindgren was cuffed, he kicked at the vehicle and tires. Lindgren struggled with officers as they attempted to put him in the patrol vehicle, refusing to sit and preventing officers from putting his legs into the car.

Lindgren was booked at the Thurston County Jail for third degree assault, malicious mischief and resisting arrest.

http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/polic…

Anyone with knowledge of the ethnicity of Chaske Lindgren?

@3, The case is not analogous because at not point was force or the threat of force used to take the property. The introduction of the element of the threatened use of force takes the crime from municipal court and possibly days in jail, to superior court and a sentence of years. One involves a threat to stuff, the other a threat to people. You offer a false and highly misleading analogy.

@4, Again the case you offer is a not equivalent. A crime against low-valued stuff (misdemeanor) not people (felony) is what officers are responding to. It then becomes an assault, but did not rise to the level where the officers were at risk of "great personal injury" or death, the officer was not outnumbered, by himself/herself, at night. So that aspect of the case you cite is not equivalent to the facts so far in the shooting case last night. That could change if additional evidence shows that the officer in last night shooting was unreasonable in his perception of being at risk of "great personal injury" or death in the circumstances he faced. Again, let's wait and see what evidence emerges before applying the legal criteria that Eli Saunders so ably broke down for us in the link provided in a prior content.

Ever wonder who would pay for an oil train explosion in a major metro area? The most insurance even a large railroad can buy is $1.5 billion. Even the small town Lac-Megantic where 47 people died will cost over $ 2 billion with over $200 million from clean-up alone. Any railroad would just declare bankruptcy if such a judgment were won against it.
The fact is that the federal government of Canada will pay for Lac-Megantic and that Uncle Sam will pay for a similar scale disaster here.
Efforts to set up an insurance mechanism such as for nuclear disasters get short shrift from a congress smarting from big bank bailouts so they roll the dice, knowing full well that they would not let a Class I railroad go bankrupt. Too big to fail all over again. So just let the railroads run, poorly regulated and stick the American people with the bill for a catastrophe, if, heaven forbid, need be.
That is the reality and in the face of that reality we need to do all we can to keep those oil cars upright. That means frequent and fine-tooth-comb inspections of rail, cars, train configurations, loads, operational procedures, etc. And don't for a moment think we do anywhere near the inspecting say Europe or even Australia does. As a percent of GDP England spends three times as much and Australia five times as much on railroad infrastructure as we do.
The Federal Railroad Administration is our agency charged with overseeing railroad inspections. Please sign the attached petition at http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/enforce… demanding that they strictly enforce the rules that are the only line of defense between oil trains and the 16 million of us who live in their path.

#7

The only reason I present these cases is because I have seen it played out time and again here in the supposedly ethnic-neutral state of Washington.

People who don't "look like us" get slammed to the ground.

But commit a crime as the perfect little tow-haired Seattle Boy and suddenly even Washington Men and officials get all weepy. Some Mexican kid steals gum, slam his head. Colton Harris steal a plane....oh, the comments in the Seattle Times are all about how "well he's so smart why don't they let him go".

Just recently I was reading about a mass-murderer in the Seattle Times who had escaped the death penalty when he had killed I think it was six people, most of a family. There was no mention of thug or madman. Reason....he LOOKED LIKE US (you, them, Washingtonians).

In my own life I felt that as a Southern European who tans easy, I've been labelled as "less" than others who fit the Washington Profile. I went through one period where it seemed like every little infraction resulted in a ticket. Yet someone I knew who "fit the profile" was speeding on his motorcycle on a shoulder at 65 mph and was stopped by cops -- and let go without a ticket. Reason...he LOOKED LIKE US.

#2, throwing a beer can while fleeing does not constitute use or threat of force. This was only a misdemeanor. While I agree misdemeanors should be taken more seriously in this region, you must understand that double parking within Seattle city limits is considered a misdemeanor. Shall we start considering the use or threat of lethal force against people parked at bus stops? These are equivalent crimes within our legal system.

Interesting read re: slut shaming.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv…

Turns out it's not men doing the shaming. Duh.

@10. Actually it does. Cases like this are charged and convicted as Robbery as a matter of routine. Putting your hand in your pocket and pointing the pocket at somebody while demanding their cellphone, even though no knife or gun is present is robbery, much less launching projectile at someone. You can find dozens of cases in Seattle like that each year that are charged as robbery not theft and cases where shoplift of gum escalates to and gets charged as robbery, because the suspect through it at the store employees trying to get 0away. Just because you don't think its robbery, does not make it so as a legal matter, and the law was enacted by this society as a whole via democratic processes.

Assault can be a misdemeanor, but not robbery. Someone who puts stuff above the welfare of another by threatening them with force or using force (throwing a projectile) is very dangerous. As a result, Robbery only exists in the 1st and 2nd Degree, both felonies, and both with potential sentences of years, not months. It is not the value of what is taken that makes it a felony, but the prioritization by the perpetrator of stuff over people. In that sense the lower the value of the stuff actually makes it worse. Someone who sees getting away with someone's penny as more important that if the other person is terrorized, traumatized, hurt, or killed is a truly dangerous person to society. That is why this Legislature and other legislatures, and the voters that elect them, take it so seriously.

@9. Point taken; however, it does not follow that this case is anther example of that. It may be.

What other individuals do you stereotype and judge by the group that they are a part of?

So wait...Atlanta got the public transit and turned into a sprawl-laden shithole, and we're supposed to lament not having that same public transit because...why? Maybe the kind of transit they wanted to build was more flawed than the reasoning of the voters? Just a thought.

In my view, the worst mistake this town ever made was turning down the Seattle Commons. Now instead of a huge, city-defining park on the edge of Lake Union, we have a drab, Amazon-occupied field of numbingly boring glass towers. Well done, 1995 Seattleites.

#12, if there are dozens of cases in Seattle a year where throwing gum while fleeing is cause to escalate a charge to robbery, surely you can provide one specific case. That claims stinks of hyperbole, but I'm willing to admit I am wrong if you can prove it. Claiming the beer counts as a projectile is the kind of bush league charge a court appointed attorney can get it thrown out or reduced before the case is actually heard. Trumping up charges like this rarely occurs in the modern day, and if it still does is cause for judicial reform.

I am well aware of the differences between theft and robbery.

I wouldn't take any legal advice from George, he's proven repeatedly he doesn't understand laws and constitution.

Did the Olympia police officer truly believe the assault by skateboard put him at risk of "great personal injury" or death? If so, he probably shouldn't be a police officer. Use of deadly force by police should be a last resort, not something done in response to "contempt of cop"

georgeingeorgetown has more than once demonstrated an inability to distinguish between deadly force and force capable of causing death, and between justified use of force and justified use of deadly force. He's not reliable on legal matters in my opinion, like JonnoN said.
That said, I'm waiting for more information before leaping to conclusions. The officer may have been justified in using force; he may not. I cannot tell from the information thus far available.

@14, It's not throwing bubble gum, but this police report makes the point. All that happened was that the girls necklace was yanked from her neck. No reported injury by the victim. Yet its Robbery. Forcible (yanking the necklace off without injury) taking of property from a person.

"On 08-19-2014 at approx 1930 hrs while working two man uniform patrol with
Ofc Royster as 3S2, we responded to a Robbery call at the
at 91 Rainier Av S.
We arrived on scene at and met with V , who was crying and visibly
shaken. She was walking out of the with her English teacher
W when an unknown B/M approached V/ and grabbed her gold
necklace from around her neck. The suspects ran Northbound on Rainer Av and
Westbound on S Henderson St. V/ chased the suspect briefly.
V stated the only description of the suspect she could make out
was a B/M, 16-18 yrs old, wearing a Navy blue hoodie.
W/ who spoke with the suspect minutes prior to the Robbery, stated the
suspect was wearing a Navy Blue hoodie with white lettering on the front
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL OFFENSE HARDCOPY
WEB RELEASE - SOME REDACTIONS PER RCW 42.56.240
GO# 2014-276290 INACTIVE 1206-0 ROBBERY-STREET-BODYFORCE
For: 6206 Printed On: Aug-26-2014 (Tue.) Page 4 of 5
chest. W/ also stated the suspect had very dark skin and large lips.
W/ could not describe a description.
V stated the necklace stolen was a long and gold. She described
it as an India wedding necklace, which is unique to only her. I was unable
to obtain a picture of the necklace taken, but she stated her husband at
home has several images of the necklace taken.
Ofc Royster spoke with the library staff if any video existed of the event.
Staff informed us that they do not have a video system. We also checked the
nearby but were informed their cameras do not pan over towards
the library.
An area search was conducted for the suspect description given. We were
unable to locate a suspect. V was provided with an SPD case
number and business card."

And this one. He never touches the victim he just acts like he is going to use physical force, no weapon. Charge Felony Robbery, loss is less than $750, which would have been theft had he not taken it from her when she was present.

"15 INITIAL INCIDENT DESCRIPTION / NARRATIVE:
{On 05/14/2014, we were on uniformed patrol in fully marked patrol
vehicles equipped with lights and sirens. We were dispatched to respond to
the report of a car prowl.
We arrived on scene and contacted the victim, She
reported that at approximately 1535 hrs on 05/14/2014, she had parked her
vehicle in the at 92 Rainier Av S
began putting air into a tire on the driver's seat side. She felt
the car jolt, looked up and observed that her front passenger's side door
was open and her purse was missing from the front passenger's side seat.
reported that she had locked the door, but the window had been
rolled down.
contacted an unnamed witness standing near vehicle. The
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL OFFENSE HARDCOPY
WEB RELEASE - SOME REDACTIONS PER RCW 42.56.240
GO# 2014-150123 INACTIVE 1206-0 ROBBERY-STREET-BODYFORCE
For: 6206 Printed On: May-20-2014 (Tue.) Page 4 of 5
witness described the suspect, a black male wearing a blue shirt with green
writing, and pointed out the suspect's direction of travel. located
a male matching the description approximately 75' east of her vehicle's
location. The male was with a black male wearing a white shirt and an Asian
or Mexican female. approached the suspect in the blue shirt and
observed a bulge under his shirt matching the outline of purse.
stated the subjects appeared as if they were under the influence of
drugs.
demanded her purse back. The male in the blue shirt lunged at
and pulled his arm back as if he was preparing to strike her. The
female ran at as though she was trying to tackle her.
believed the male in the blue shirt and the female were threatening her
physical harm in order to retain purse. told them to back
up and they stopped. The suspects began walking away, behind the
building.
returned to her vehicle, realizing she had left it unlocked. The
unnamed witnesses who had earlier identified the suspects told that
the suspects left travelling southbound on Rainier Av S on foot.
The security footage from confirmed account, but the
camera was too far away for a clear image of the suspects' faces. The
footage showed the subjects approaching vehicle from the
direction of 92 Rainier Av S.
purse is a black wristlet approximately 12"x6". It contained
wallet, driver's license, $300, a redit card, and other
miscellaneous items.
We provided with a business card, case number and victim follow up
form."

@16, According to Crime in the United States, 2013, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 11, there were 428 homicide with blunt objects (the category skateboards fit into), 285 with rifles (which includes so called "assault weapons" like the AR 15 used at Newtown), and 308 with shotguns. 686 people were killed by someone using fits, feet, etc. (no weapon). So you have statistically speaking more probability of being killed by a blunt force weapon like a skateboard other other rapidly swung piece of wood than you do by someone with a rifle. Obviously the faster the blunt force object is swung, the heavier it is, and where it strikes increase the probability of serious injury or death.

#18, both I and the courts can tell the difference between throwing an object weighing less than one gram and applying force to somebody's neck sufficient to snap a necklace chain or thread. Your second report includes attempted battery. Neither of these reports are remotely like the situation you said happens on a monthly basis.

@20. The beer in Olympia weighed less than a gram? So why isn't throwing the beer in the video, which actually struck the store clerks hand battery? If it falls short, attempted battery? Why wouldn't merely calking back with it as if to throw the beer be battery?

@20, and I did say, in post 18, "It's not throwing bubble gum ..." That said, ripping the necklace off also caused no injury. The point of the two cases provided to you is that theft + force or even the threat of force to accomplish the theft make it felony robbery. That same formula and application of law in the two actual cases provided, also applies to the clerk and the beer in Olympia, meaning the officer was responding to try and apprehend felons not petty thieves.

Libertene,

As the necklace case demonstrates, no actual significant probability or likelihood of or actual injury is an element of the crime of robbery, just the application of force related to the victim in the unlawful taking of property in someone's immediate possession or control. Force or the offer of force + unlawful taking of property in someone's immediate possession or control = robbery.

The pursue theft case demonstrates that their need not be any application of force to the victim, just the offer or threat of it, whether it is successfully applied or not, while taking property from a person's possession or control (it was on the seat, not her person).

In the Olympia store the video shows theft (element #1 of robbery) via the offer, attempt, or actual application of force to the person in control or lawful possession of the property while they are present. Both elements for robbery are present, as in the other two cases, so the officer in Olympia is responding to felony robbery, not petty theft.

Forget the gum.

Additionally, the officer must be responding to a felony to offer force (draw down on with his firearm or other deadly weapon). Legislatures and common law assume that responding to a felony, by definition, puts someone at enough risk to justify the responders preemptive offer (but not use) of deadly force even if the suspect has not yet offered any force. Additional threat of "great personal injury" is required use that deadly weapon.

When a citizen or cop responds to a misdemeanor reasonable force, but not deadly force may be offered, and then used to stop the crime and secure the suspect. But even responding to a misdemeanor, the second a suspect offers force that puts the officer or citizen at imminent risk of "great personal injury" then the officer or citizen can use deadly force.

I am not suggesting that is necessarily the kind of Judge Dread society we want either. A small few other states impose an obligation to retreat, if feasibly possible, before resorting to deadly force in self-defense. You could even say you have to let alleged misdemeanants flee because the property loss isn't worth the risk of injury to the suspect, a store employee. or its lawful owner. Whether that is desirable or not is a separate discussion, my point is it is not the state of the law we have settled on today through democratic processes and institutions.

But the laws offered in the prior paragraph aren't the laws we have. This officer, these suspects, the store clerk, all need to be evaluated based on the laws we have agreed to in this state. If we don't like the outcomes, then change the laws, so forcibly propelling beer at someone, with or without intent or probably potential to injure (there was low probability of injury by forcibly grabbing and breaking the necklace and no injury resulted), as they are making a get away from unlawfully having unlawfully swiped it, is no longer and element of robbery.

I'm not off the rails. As a former defense attorney pointed out in response to a comment made on a Stranger story some weeks ago on another criminal case, I am interacting with the law and the facts and coming to reasonable conclusions.

To say that there wasn't a felony in the store you have to be able to make the case that there was no theft (the video shows the guy running toward the exit with unpaid for merchandise, good luck with that) or that he did not forcibly throw the beer at the clerk when confronted with the theft. But that is what the video shows. That is what she said. She said, and the video shows, that it actually struck her in the hand. A Judge is going to instruct a jury to convict, if that is what the evidence showed occurred. Theft + force offered, attempted, or actually inflicted, not matter how small on the person in lawful control of the property. Make the case.

A Judge is going to instruct a jury not to convict the officer for firing at the 1st suspect shot unless the officer's perception that he was at "great personal injury" either because of a skateboard was being swung at him. or because it was two on one and he was at imminent risk of being overpowered, was unreasonable. That would be true of a civilian firing that shot at that suspect as well. In addition, because the guy is cop, the prosecution is going to have to show that the cop "in bad faith and with malice" fired at the suspect even though he had not reasonably concluded he was at risk of "great personal injury". The officer's, or citizen's perception need not be the most probable or likely conclusion, based on the facts present, it just needs to be one of the one or more reasonable conclusions. It need not be probable or even correct, just reasonable as a matter of law.

That is the law we judge all this by. Don't like it, change it. But in a civilized society we just don't disregard or set-aside the laws we don't like. We allow all of the parties in this case to rely on the law as it is, in how we stand in judgment of them, until we change the law and give them new standards to conduct themselves by in regards to the rest of us.

I'm far from being an supporter of cops, but I think when people protest EVERY shooting it takes away from the legitimate police brutality cases. The fact is if they hadn't stolen they wouldn't have been shoot. People can't ignore that, and for the person who said a "petty crime" but look at how often convenience store clerks are murdered for "petty theft"..if someone is stealing from me i would assume they are willing to hurt me to steal so i would also shoot first because I am concerned about my life not the person who decided to rob me.

I'm far from being a supporter of cops, but I think when people protest EVERY shooting it takes away from the legitimate police brutality cases. The fact is if they hadn't stolen they wouldn't have been shoot. People can't ignore that, and for the person who said a "petty crime" look at how often convenience store clerks are murdered for "petty theft"..if someone is stealing from me i would assume they are willing to hurt me to steal so i would also shoot first because I am concerned about my life not the person who decided to rob me.