Page 3 of 4

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:09 am
by MyWifeSaidYes
cashman966 wrote:
How does it not apply? if privilege is revoked the element is met. When he entered he had privilege, when he was asked to leave he no longer had privilege to remain. What am I missing?
Dressler did not hear what the security guard said to him.

After that, the police were involved. No one asked Dressler to leave in the presence of the police.

Dressler left the store when he was told that there was a CPZ sign at the entry...and that was just so they could point out the sign to him.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:03 am
by djthomas
Whether or not the defendant heard the order to leave the property is a legitimate matter for the trier of fact to determine. In this case after weighing all the evidence the judge found that the prosecution could not meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so the charges were dismissed in the defendant's favor. That's good from a criminal perspective. However, just because he prevailed on that point in his criminal trial does not automatically translate to his civil rights having been violated.
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Dressler left the store when he was told that there was a CPZ sign at the entry...and that was just so they could point out the sign to him.
And that was after the police arrived, several minutes after allegedly first being told to leave. That's dangerously close to "There's no sign posted so go screw off." The longer one debates or delays after indications have been given that one is no longer welcome on the premises the harder it is to claim privilege to remain.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:27 am
by BB62
BobK wrote:Although I believe Dressler was treated wrongfully and the lawsuit has merit, I'd also like to point out that the arrest report said he was "argumentative" with police and he endured a 20 month ordeal, risk of incarceration, and legal fees.

That is why my strategy if ever confronted with a similar situation is to state simply, "I apologize, I had no idea it was posted. I'll leave immediately."

Arguing that you have the right to be there seems like a strategy that rarely works. Trying to win a confrontation with a police officer is a losing proposition unless you really want to go to jail that evening.
As one who attended nearly every hearing over the 20 months, and who has read a lot of the filings, I can tell you that IMHO there are lots of lessons to be learned from an incident such as this; most of which are already widely known.

When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard who thinks he's "The Man", a feisty, argumentative individual, who because of partial deafness did not hear the initial "order" of said guard, and whose conduct ticked off a badge-heavy cop and a judge - regardless of the quality of your defense and the inapplicability of the law, you're in for a prolonged fight, even though you might ultimately win your case.

Kroger, the prosecutor, and the judge had numerous opportunities to have the matter dropped or to drop the matter, but they chose not to. It was a travesty, and Mr. Dressler deserves all he can get from any parties who can be held responsible.

If you don't have an attorney friend, as well as the extraordinary ability to fight in an arena that most people don't stand a chance in, conduct yourself in a manner that minimizes your exposure.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:04 pm
by Chuck
BB62 wrote:When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard

What does his height, or his tattoos have to do with it?

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:41 am
by BB62
Chuck wrote:
BB62 wrote:When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard
What does his height, or his tattoos have to do with it?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20complex" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Links are supposed to be accompanied by a brief summary so that people know what they are clicking on. --m380g

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:35 am
by TJW815
BB62 wrote:
Chuck wrote:
BB62 wrote:When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard
What does his height, or his tattoos have to do with it?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20complex" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's comments like that, that make people lose faith in what you say.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:43 pm
by cashman966
BB62 wrote:
Chuck wrote:
BB62 wrote:When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard
What does his height, or his tattoos have to do with it?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20complex" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Links are supposed to be accompanied by a brief summary so that people know what they are clicking on. --m380g
Kinda like why many antis say we all carry guns right? :roll:

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:37 pm
by MyWifeSaidYes
I've never held someone's height against them.

BB62 knows this.

:wink:

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:33 am
by Chuck
Evidently BB62 can't say the same

What's that called, being a heightist?

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:48 am
by Bama.45
Chuck wrote:Evidently BB62 can't say the same

What's that called, being a heightist?

Vertical discrimination :lol:

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:37 pm
by WestonDon
BB62 wrote:


When you have a short of stature, heavily-tattooed security guard who thinks he's "The Man",


To be sure physical height and tattoos are irrelevant to the situation at hand. That said, when I read that description it instantly brought to mind several Richards I have known. That tells me something about the general tone of the encounter.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:27 pm
by MyWifeSaidYes
Right. I'm not saying that a "Napoleon complex" did not exist, just that Mr. Dressler is not so tall as to bring out such a complex in others.

This is different than if BB62 were involved...BB62 is so tall he grabs airplanes and writes his name in the sky with contrails !!

:mrgreen: :P

:roll: (No, I'm not rolling my eyes. I'm looking up to see the expression on BB62's face. :D )

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:11 pm
by Werz
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Right. I'm not saying that a "Napoleon complex" did not exist, just that Mr. Dressler is not so tall as to bring out such a complex in others.
That's why I thought it was an odd comment. Mr. Dressler being somewhat diminutive himself, one would think that any such effect would be nullified.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:49 pm
by MyWifeSaidYes
Well, I tend to believe the idea of a "Napoleon complex" is just one example of compensating for being 'short' of something.

This particular security guard was 'short' of a firearm. I think THAT is what set off the crybaby Waterloo, I mean, waterworks.

Re: Lawsuit filed after Cincinnati O.C. arrest

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:49 pm
by BB62
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:...This particular security guard was 'short' of a firearm...
Actually, he was not.