Fishers gas clerk arrested for intimidation, PD says pulled gun on theft suspect

[DCR]

Just a point of order, none of us really know what happened. Every single "it's justified" or "it's not justified" is based strictly on the supposition of what happened based on a media account.

I'm sure folks are tired of hearing me say this, but media accounts are often so wrong I sometimes don't recognize my own cases on the news until a name is mentioned. They care about being first and about generating attention (controversy), not about being right.

You reminded me of an episode in the Speedway shopping center parking lot about 45 years ago. 3 men met, 2 of them related, a single shot was fired, someone was hit. According to the ABC, NBC, CBS local affiliates, person A was the shooter, person C was the shooter, person A was shot, person B was shot, person C was shot. If you combine the 3 news stories, then it was possible that 2 people shot themselves.

 

[tbhausen]

Do you suppose there might be some middle ground between anarchy and pointing a gun at someone for misdemeanor theft? Shopkeeper's rights allows the owner/agent to arrest and hold the person for 2 hours or until LE arrives. You can use reasonable force to do so, although most places won't any longer due to liability concerns. The last chain I knew of that would allow it's employees to kick your backside should you fail to comply was Menard's. Not sure if they have the same policy now.

Of course I have no idea what actually happened. Intimidation seems like an odd charge if the news story is correct, but I'm not holding my breath for the news story to be correct...

Knowing John Menard, I'm willing to bet that policy has not changed.

 

[Fargo]

Looks like Hamilton Co. prosecutor filed felony theft on Robinson. While a search of mycase shows that the traffic wardens of Hamilton Co haven't been particularly kind to Al-Rafie, I don't see anything criminal filed to date.

 

[rkwhyte2]

Just saw on Fox59 that no charges will be filed against the clerk.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Looks like Hamilton Co. prosecutor filed felony theft on Robinson. While a search of mycase shows that the traffic wardens of Hamilton Co haven't been particularly kind to Al-Rafie, I don't see anything criminal filed to date.

Felony theft... hmmm, he must have a prior conviction.

 

[Fargo]

Felony theft... hmmm, he must have a prior conviction.

I'm shocked I say! I looked it up, it looks like he had a Marion Co. B felony robbery and gang stuff charge that was pled to theft back in 2010. Mostly drug stuff since then.

Ironically, if he had been convicted of the robbery rather than the theft, it couldn't be used to enhance this charge.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Mostly drug stuff since then.

It sounds to me like he has a drug issue here, as in he got drug to jail!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It sounds to me like he has a drug issue here, as in he got drug to jail!

...ok, that's funny.

 

[Trigger Time]

Thrown out because the cops were full of ****. Hmm shocked. Stay out of fishers

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I hope Mr. Al-Rafie corrects the horrific injustice he suffered because of false allegation made in retaliation for a prior lawful act.

And, Mr. Al-Rafie, do I ever know how you feel.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So... what happened here?

Fishers gas station clerk arrested for intimidation after police say he pulled gun on theft suspect | Fox 59

Retaliation for a prior lawful act. You don't think the criminal subculture knows about the two boxes on the police report? (First to call is the victim).

Let me show you how this happens, first, you ask a question of the government and then . . . http://www.jconline.com/story/opini...-questions-tippecanoe-co-courtroom/430255001/

 

[Trigger Time]

I hope Mr. Al-Rafie corrects the horrific injustice he suffered because of false allegation made in retaliation for a prior lawful act.

And, Mr. Al-Rafie, do I ever know how you feel.

Yeah this is serious injustice. Humiliation. An arrest on his record. I hope he is well compensated and the officers have it taken out of their pay. Oh wait bahahahaha that will never Happen because the people are held accoutible for the bad actions of their govt. Sad.
Time for fishers reeducation camp

 

[tbhausen]

This is what happens when you file charges based on what the criminal told the cops.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is what happens when you file charges based on what the criminal told the cops.

Sounds like someone wins a cranial-rectal inversion award for this!

 

[Alamo]

A link to the...resolution, I guess, of the incident:

Fishers BP gas clerk speaks out after wrongful arrest | WISH-TV

I would want some 'splaining too.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This is what happens when you file charges based on what the criminal told the cops.

Is that what happened?

A legal arrest requires probable cause. Prosecutors file on what they think they can win (beyond a reasonable doubt) and politics. I think you'd have an uphill battle getting a jury to convict for Intimidation even if it was a slam dunk.

An example that's relevant to me is resisting shoplifters. By both statute and by case law, that's a robbery. The prosecutor's office here used to charge them as robberies, but juries didn't seem to agree, so now they don't. I could, in theory, arrest someone who wrestled with loss prevention for strong arm robbery and then the prosecutor not file it. That doesn't mean it's a bad arrest. (Although in that case they would file theft and battery, just not robbery)

TL;DR: it could be a bad arrest, it could be a legal but tone deaf arrest, and it could have been a good arrest not filed for other reasons. I'd say victim credibility/jury "likability" could be a factor here, even if it was a good arrest legally. There's more that goes on behind the scenes than most know.

A link to the...resolution, I guess, of the incident:

Fishers BP gas clerk speaks out after wrongful arrest | WISH-TV

I would want some 'splaining too.

The first article said Intimidation, this one says Pointing a Firearm, and the only thing I can find under the name of the clerk in public records is a bunch of driving stuff....so who knows?

 

[Expat]

Maybe I don't understand how this stuff works. If I had video of the incident, I would think the police would watch it before arresting the guy.

 

[tbhausen]

Is that what happened?

A legal arrest requires probable cause. Prosecutors file on what they think they can win (beyond a reasonable doubt) and politics. I think you'd have an uphill battle getting a jury to convict for Intimidation even if it was a slam dunk.

An example that's relevant to me is resisting shoplifters. By both statute and by case law, that's a robbery. The prosecutor's office here used to charge them as robberies, but juries didn't seem to agree, so now they don't. I could, in theory, arrest someone who wrestled with loss prevention for strong arm robbery and then the prosecutor not file it. That doesn't mean it's a bad arrest. (Although in that case they would file theft and battery, just not robbery)

TL;DR: it could be a bad arrest, it could be a legal but tone deaf arrest, and it could have been a good arrest not filed for other reasons. I'd say victim credibility/jury "likability" could be a factor here, even if it was a good arrest legally. There's more that goes on behind the scenes than most know.



The first article said Intimidation, this one says Pointing a Firearm, and the only thing I can find under the name of the clerk in public records is a bunch of driving stuff....so who knows?

It is my understanding (from listening to Guy Relford's radio show) that the arrest was based on the criminal's telling police the clerk pointed the gun at him, and that video later disproved that accusation.

 

[tbhausen]

Maybe I don't understand how this stuff works. If I had video of the incident, I would think the police would watch it before arresting the guy.

For law-enforcement among us, how does this work? It's not like everyone can sit around a table watching video before deciding whether to arrest.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It is my understanding (from listening to Guy Relford's radio show) that the arrest was based on the criminal's telling police the clerk pointed the gun at him, and that video later disproved that accusation.

Then Intimidation would not be the right charge. It would be "Pointing a Firearm". You do not have to point a firearm, or have physical contact, for Intimidation. I've already covered the differences, but note different media accounts say different things...which is why it's ultimately pointless to make a decision based on the media.

For law-enforcement among us, how does this work? It's not like everyone can sit around a table watching video before deciding whether to arrest.

Sometimes. I watch video quite a bit as a robbery detective. However I'm also dealing with a more serious felony, have access to an on-call guy who knows how to run a bunch of different systems, etc. For a misdemeanor or low level felony, you might watch it, you might make a report and let a district detective (or whatever the general detective is called for that given department), or make an arrest and follow up with the video later. It just depends on what other evidence you have, what the situation is, how much of a chance of retaliation if both parties are left on the street, how easy it is to find the suspect again later (homeless? Out of towner?), etc.