Jerald Newman, Bloodied by Buckeye Cop in '11 at Walmart, Nets $30,000 in Settlement

newman-jerald-onground.JPG
Jerald Newman just seconds after being slammed to the ground by a Buckeye cop at a Walmart on November 24, 2011.
Buckeye will pay $30,000 to police-brutality victim and California resident Jerald Newman in a much-publicized 2011 case of Black Friday mayhem at a Walmart.

The payoff is less than the $500,000 sought originally by Newman. But it still provides some justice in a case that saw the Maricopa County Attorney's fail to act on a state Department of Public safety recommendation of an assault charge against a cop.

See also:
- Kevin Rorke, Buckeye Cop, Cleared of Wrongdoing in Black Friday Arrest at Walmart; Suspect Jerald Newman Files Notice of Claim Vs. Town

Officer Kevin Rorke, who, records show, had been disciplined in 2006 for excessive use of force, was helping with security at the Buckeye Walmart on November 24, 2011, the first night of a Black Friday sale, when pandemonium erupted at a video-game stand.

"Holy chaos" was the description of what happened by one startled witness in a Buckeye police report. A crowd of shoppers excited to get their hands on the game rushed the stand, tearing it to pieces like a pack of wild animals.

newman jerald.jpg
Jerald Newman

A sales associate saw Newman "on a pallet of games, on his knees, with customers on top of him," the Buckeye report says. The worker helped Newman to his feet "so he would not be trampled."

But, as Newman related in his claim, his main concern wasn't himself -- it was his 8-year-old grandson, who also was caught in the whirlwind of frantic shoppers.

A worker saw Newman shove two of the games in his pants. Newman never denied the allegation, saying later he only wanted to save the games to buy and had tucked them in his pants so he could free his hands to help up the boy, who had been knocked down.

Another store worker then walked up to Newman and escorted him over to Rorke, who slapped a handcuff on him. One witness said Newman was cooperating for the most part, but seemed to be "quietly resisting" as Rorke arrested him. Rorke performed a leg sweep on Newman, then 54, and slammed him to the ground.

Numerous eyewitnesses whipped out their cell phones and captured images of Newman blacked out on the ground, blood leaking from his head. One of the videos, by David Chadd, a CNN reporter from Las Vegas, has received more than 355,000 views. (See it below.)

When Newman came to, he was arrested on suspicion of shoplifting. No charges against him were ever filed.

As New Times reported last year, Newman filed a claim against Buckeye, followed by a lawsuit that alleged false arrest, assault and battery and emotional distress. Town officials confirmed to New Times that the case was settled at the end of July for $30,000.

We tried to get in touch with Town Manager Stephen Cleveland, but his secretary wouldn't put us through to his voicemail, instead referring our question to Bob Bushner, the town's public information officer.

Bushner called us back to say the Town of Buckeye has no comment.

Rorke, meanwhile, still works as a Buckeye cop.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
39 comments
Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

He should have gotten more and that cop needs to be arrested and tried for the assault.

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

So all it costs is 30 grand for a cop to get away with police brutality in Maricopa County...

Interesting, since so many normal people go to prison for years for what would have been considered assault had they done this to someone.


Marco Cruz
Marco Cruz

They should have beat everyone who showed up to shop that day. Dumb ass sheep.

Garyn Klasek
Garyn Klasek

ACAB. I don't know what's sadder: the fact that these assholes still get away with this shit or that it takes this shit happening to get people to stop fucking shopping to at least record this crap. Bet he never shops on black friday again. Can't believe he brought a kid to that .

Carnivorous_Buttock_Fly
Carnivorous_Buttock_Fly

Speaking of MCAO failing to file charges against police officers on the recommendation of police agencies that have performed investigations into some police forces less than ethical and in some cases criminal behavior, what the hell is going on with the Iron Brotherhood fiasco that MCAO's office has had for months and months and months? 

I haven't seen any charges filed against those drunken, Outlaw Motorcycle Gang emulating, pieces of trash yet. 

Maybe Bill Montgomery and his office are just fine with that type of behavior coming from police officers in this state. It sure looks that way from where I stand.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

I wonder if this settlement will curb his desire to shoplift?

royalphoenix
royalphoenix

Could not have had an attorney and settled for a measly 30k. peace

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

"Holy chaos"  is probably the best way to describe the pandomonium of CHRISTMAS shopping.

Whatever
Whatever

Should have also sued Walmart considering the assault happened on their property by their hired security.  Rule number one is always have a good lawyer...

allanbartlett
allanbartlett

Does your ball gag stop your urge to suck 12 year old boys? fu

RobAZ
RobAZ

@yourproductsucks Tell us how many settlements your boss has signed off on and how it's curbed his actions?

RobAZ
RobAZ

@yourproductsucks Wonder how many shoplifting cases of yours have been thrown out when the defendant had the means to pay and tells the Judge they fully intended to pay?

royalphoenix
royalphoenix

@yourproductsucks  cops like store security should probably wait until you are at least walking towards an exit before they slam your face into the concrete for shoplifting. peace

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS  Since he was never charged with shoplifting and apparently had no record of such......

RobAZ
RobAZ

@Whatever Assuming the guys lawyer recognized Walmart has an army of staff attorneys who deal with this stuff day in/day out, whereas Buckeye.....

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@RobAZ @yourproductsucks Those circumstances didn't help Lindsay Lohan or Winona Ryder or Judge Chiles...

ARS Title 13 doesn't require that a person leave the store to be charged with Shoplifting.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public He was arrested for it, however.  Prosecutorial Discretion is not synonymous with innocence....but you know that already

allanbartlett
allanbartlett

yps is the one who swallows joewops sperm trickle. yps hates himself next morning

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@RobAZ @yourproductsucks Are you suggesting that no one has ever been convicted of shoplifting if they were arrested prior to leaving the store?

I assure you, you'd be wrong.

RobAZ
RobAZ

@yourproductsucks @RobAZ It also doesn't change the fact that being charged and what happens in court are two different things. 

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@RobAZ @yourproductsucksRemind me which one of those were in Arizona, YPS?

Judge Chiles was arrested in Arizona...

I can appreciate that you've watched officers release shoplifters and judges drop charges for shoplifters...it doesn't change the fact that the arrest is lawful when the suspect has "willfully concealed" yet hasn't left the store...

RobAZ
RobAZ

@yourproductsucks @RobAZ   Remind me which one of those were in Arizona, YPS?

I'm well aware of the laws.  I've watched officers release shoplifting suspects and Judges drop charges for shoplifters because, even though they "willfully concealed" they did not try and exit without paying.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS and if you want to make this personal - based on your responses and your presumption of guilt based solely on an arrest, it is clear that you are more than willing to trample on basic Constitutional rights which is really frightening coming from an employee of a law enforcement agency.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS So are you looking at the case file? Is that how you are aware or unaware of wheher there is security camera footage? If so, for what purpose - to comment on a blog? Is that within the guidelines of use for examining a case file within your agency? Where exactly does your awareness of whether security footage does or does not exist arise from?

A prosecutor in the charging division declined to prosecute - do you have the prosecuotr's file? Did you review the prosecutor's notes? Did you interview the prosecutor to ask why he or she declined prosecution so as to affirm that it was prosecutorial discretion? Or is your statement that it was prosecutorial discretion nothing more than an assumption on your part?

No, you haven't provided facts - you've used facts to arrive at a conclusion regarding his subjective mental state, which may or may not be supported by law. Concealment creates a presumption. By definition, all presumptions are rebuttable. Period. End of story. Unless you have the file of the prosecutor in the charging division that was assigned to this case you have no way of knowing whether the prosecutor felt that Mr. Newman adequately rebutted that presumption. And if you do have that file, I'm cursious as to how and why.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public I provide facts that are indisputable to make my argument and you refute it with assumptions...

The presumption is included in the statute in order to define what is necessary to reach "intent" as the level of culpability.  It doesn't say that concealment MAY create a presumption, rather the wording of the law is specific when it states that A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO HAVE THE NECESSARY CULPABLE MENTAL STATE...

I am unaware of security cameras providing any information that you suggest it might provide.  Perhaps it is available, yet you yourself admit you haven't seen any such thing, yet that is the premise of your argument?


It's obvious you are not a criminal attorney.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

And, I would very firmly argue that an arrest for a criminal violation is not conclusive proof that the individual committed the alleged violation.  Again, goes back to that whole presumption of innocence thing that most of us are quite proud of.  So for you to state that Newman shoplifted solely because an arrest occurred is entirely inaccurate.

And, with regard to employment applications, the EEOC would take a very dim view of your position.  I refer you to there materials on using arrests and convictions in the hiring process at  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_arrest_conviction.cfm where the EEOC states, "Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense."

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

cont.

Section B creates a presumption that the Mr. Newman has the necessary culpable mental state if the conceals on himself un-purchased merchandise. The presumption created in Section B is a rebuttable presumption - not an absolute fact. I would assume (not having access to either the police or the prosecutor's files nor the stores security camera tapes) that he presented sufficient information to rebut the presumption that exists under Section B so as to deny the necessary culpable mental state - meaning the information he presented (and probably corroborated by the security cameras) demonstrated that he did not intend to deprive the merchant of the goods without paying.

So while concealment may create a presumption, it doesn't establish the crime of shoplifting because it is a rebuttable presumption. I would assume, rather than prosecutorial discretion, that the prosecutor was concerned he couldn't win the case because the security cameras validated Mr. Newman's story - that he needed his hands free to rescue his grandson - and therefore he didn't have the necessary culpable mental state. Remember, that's the presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Constitution

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS This is why the Constitution guarantees that we have trials to establish guilt. With all due respect, the evidence isn't quite as clear and convincing as you'd like it to be.

A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods:...without paying...concealment. [emphasis added]

Did he intend to deprive the merchant of such goods by taking them without paying? This section A requires mens rea - intent (or literally a guilty mind) - which is a showing that Mr. Newman subjectively intended to deprive the merchant of the goods without paying.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public Let's not change the goal posts and generalize here in order to secure a more sure footing to the weak stance you've postured.

ARS Title 13-1805 is clear.  The arrestee admits to the elements necessary to secure a conviction for shoplifting in this case.  

Element 1- A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:

5. Concealement

He was seen by a store clerk stuffing the games into his waistband under his shirt AND the games were discovered in his waistband under his shirt AND he admitted to placing the games in his waistband, under his shirt.

He certainly was able to come up with an excuse why, however  ARS Title 13-1805 B addresses culpability quite clearly in these instances as quoted-

B. A person is presumed to have the necessary culpable mental state pursuant to subsection A of this section if the person does either of the following:

1. Knowingly conceals on himself or another person unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment while within the mercantile establishment.

It is a statement of fact that Jerald Newman shoplifted on the date in question.  It was Prosecutorial Discretion that was used in NOT charging Newman for the crime he most certainly committed.  Certainly the reasons for not choosing to prosecute Newman most likely have legitimacy as this case made National Headlines and the ensuing arrest was, at the very least, dramatic.  It's easy to understand a prosecutor's lack of desire to pursue charges based on what happened after Mr Newman shoplifted.  

A Jury or a Judge hearing the case must presume the person is innocent until proven guilty, based on the evidence provided.  Above is the evidence that would be provided by the Prosecution.  It is quite clear.  

Use whatever flowery adjectives you care to in your attempt to smear, but it doesn't change the fact that Mr Newman did, in fact, shoplift. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS  An arrest for shoplifting doesn't mean that one has shoplifted.   Clearly, an arrest for anything doesn't mean an individual has committed the crime of which they are accused of.  That is why we have a judicial system that guarantees each individual the right to know the charges against him or her and confront the government's witnesses and requires the government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.  For you to conclude that the individual was shoplifting and wasn't prosecuted solely because of "prosecutorial discretion" is, quite frankly, disturbing because you know as well as I do that prosecutors also don't charge when they can't prove that a crime has been committed or that the suspect committed the alleged crime so just because it wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean that it was the result of prosecutorial discretion. You're assuming guilt before it's been adjudicated where is really ugly.

Job applications have nothing to do with the presumption of innocence guaranteed to suspects under the U.S. Constitution.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public Actually, a shoplifting CONVICTION is a legal conclusion made by a jury or, in a bench trial, by a judge...

There is obvious legitimacy you are attempting to dismiss in an arrest, as an individual applying for a job is asked to list all ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS.  When a background check is completed on a subject, their ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS are listed.

Nothing libelous about stating fact.  It is a fact that Jerald Newman was arrested for Shoplifting.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@YPS  I also know that shoplifting is a legal conclusion made by a jury or, in a bench trial, by a judge, and no such legal conclusion was made in this matter so you stating, or at the very least implying, in writing that he shoplifts without a legal finding of such is tantamount to libel.....but you know that already.

FlyerGetsOwned
FlyerGetsOwned

Funny how you liberal idiots are all for destroying our constitution and bill of rights except when fitting for your own agenda.  F*ck you and the c*nt you came out of b*tch.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @JohnQ.Public 

So because you are arrested for something, that means it's true? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights means nothing anymore?

You are a disgusting little person, it's no surprise you work for MCSO.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...