First eight jurors selected in case of Walmart customer who allegedly punched employee

I hear she was a graduate from the Fight Club Day Care Center for Toddlers.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you have a decision?”

“We have your honor..GUILTY”!!!!!!!

Too bad Jacquetta shouted about the elderly employee’s race after slugging her.

What did she say? "This is justice for Trayvon, you white b***h!"

There are links in the article you can follow to find out details of the attack.

Thanks for your neutral, fact-finding approach. Others have already made up their minds without seeking more information. Of course, in no case did the customer have any basis for attacking the cashier physically. But there is much more to this event (given here) that illuminates the attitude of the attacker.

It seems clear that there is a third hand seeking to exploit this incident, through bearing the tremendous expense of defending the accused attacker, who has demonstrated neither shame nor regret.

I wonder who is backing of the defense costs? That's where the real story is, IMHO.

Yep, a “dissin’” be justification for a beat-down, yo.

I’m surprised, though, that it wasn’t a 3 on one beat-down, even though the white lady was 70.

The elderly employee who was punched was a Walmart greeter and not a cashier. The attacker went after her when she asked to see the perp’s receipt upon exiting.

This case was reported all over at Christmas time in the media’s series of shopper rage. I remember it.

As you point out, nothing justifies her actions but I think most people would be at least ticked off if a bag were grabbed from their hands. She did in fact have a receipt.

It seems clear that there is a third hand seeking to exploit this incident, through bearing the tremendous expense of defending the accused attacker, who has demonstrated neither shame nor regret.

There are ALWAYS third hands involved.

Even as we talk here, there are hundreds of 'third hands' as you call them involved in getting people like this and worse, rapists, wife beaters, murderers, what have you, out of prison. Once out of prison it is made sure that they are able to walk amoung us, unmarked, so they can continue their life of crime.

Hundreds of such organizations whose SOLE purpose is the above.

Hundreds of such organizations whose SOLE purpose is the above.

It seems kind of raw that this perp showed no sense of regret, but is fighting punishment to the limit she can.

I think here one external race-baiting (RB) entity might be the backing, to stoke up the fires into a hot war, the very opposite of trying to effect Christian reconciliation through confession and repentance to heal souls.

Do you have any names of "third hand" agitators that seem to ve to exacerbate these attitude problems? Beside ACLU and NAACP, and New Black Panthers, and Southern Poverty, and Farrikan, and the like, that is? Where is all the money coming from to hire a city lawyer and his associate lawyer to enter courts over and over -- is it to bring New York's new elder abuse law into question? Is this being used as a test case for that? Maybe take it to SCOTUS if necessary?? Who funds this?

If you have some other names, it would be good to trot them out and be keeping them in the public's mind --

I saw that a local black church in the area provided a "shield" of members to hide Simmmons from spectators and stave off news and photographers at her arraignment. Are they the prodders? will they appeal to RBs as they did on the Trayvon thing? What kind of church is that? (Its name was not given.)

I wonder -- are they doing this in the name of ... Christ?

"Simmons trial were selected today in an day-long session aimed at weeding out those who may not be able to fairly weigh evidence in the case."

...And making sure they are chosen to serve on the jury.

The Kenyan must go.

Case has nothing to do with bag or receipt. The Old Lady Greeter, took the perp and asked her to use the proper exit door, as the entrance was blocked with incoming people.

They have the punch on camera and they have witnesses on what Jacquetta said after the assault concerning her intentions. She threatened a witness, too. She’s up the creek with no paddle.

So was OJ before the start of the murder trial. We all know how that turned out. It all depends on the composition of the jury pool.

This case was reported all over at Christmas time in the media’s series of shopper rage. I remember it.

It's good that you did, but even better if you peruse at least all the reports in The Batavian local paper. The seem to have some pretty good journalism on this topic. Poking through the above helped me see some of the ins and outs of the event. There is enough blame to go around for all involved. O was born, raised educated, and worked in western New York State into my late forties. Most of my relatives and heritage is still there.

Wherever I am nowadays, I still have a huge appreciation for the integrity, quality, and character of the New York State Police. As a child I listened to a program produced and aired on WHAM loyally every week, and had several Troopers as friends and acquaintances. I am glad that this case came under their purview for the collection and preparation of much of the basis for arraignment of Miss Simmons, and trust that no trial will confound their witness of reliable and exacting police procedure.

The elderly employee who was punched was a Walmart greeter and not a cashier.

With all due respect, This statement is incorrect. From the Batavian blog on Dec 25:

>> CORRECTION: The employee allegedly assaulted was a
>> cashier, not a greeter.
>> A 70-year-old greeter at Walmart suffered fractures
>> on the left side of her face Christmas Eve after
>> a 26-year-old woman allegedly punched her after
>> being asked for her receipt for items in her
>> shopping bag.

Please note that the above emphasis is in the article as editorially corrected. Also in the report of June 27:

>> Asked to elaborate, especially in context of
>> having now reviewed video surveillance tapes
>> from Dec. 24, Key's only example of misinformation
>> was that it's been reported that the victim,
>> Walmart employee Grace Suozzi, was near the front
>> door working as a greeter. She was actually working
>> as a cashier that day.

The victim was acting as a cashier, not as a greeter. This is a very important detail.

The attacker went after her when she asked to see the perp’s receipt upon exiting.

Your statement here is correct, but lacks a couple more facts. From The Batavian, it was reported on Dec. 27:

>> It's unclear from the statements if Suozzi was
>> engaged in a systematic process of checking receipts,
>> or engaged in other activities and singled out
>> Simmons and her companion for some reason.

Let me suggest that the reason Simmons and her companion were singled out was because they had (a) bag(s) (Walmart's) containing products, and the bag(s) was/were not placed on the cashier's counter. (This is a typical ploy of shoplifters, but an indeliberate violation of Walmart policy by these two).Continuing:

>> It's also unclear why Simmons and her companion
>> had a bag full of previously purchased merchandise
>> while at the cash register.

We probably are going to find that Jacquetta had forgotten a couple of other items, and they went back in, selected more to be purchased, and Jacquette handed her companion with a/one/the bag(s) of purchased items so that she could free her hands and purse to pay for the new ones. Let's also presume that her first purchases went to a different register than to the 70 y/o victim's #2.

Going on, let's scrutinize what Suozzi had to say in her statement to a trooper, recorded while she was at the hospital, right soon after the incident:

>> "I was working at Walmart on register 2 ..."

In Walmart stores, Register 2 is normally an express lane, and is usually almost directly in front of the exit doors. There will be perhaps a greeter, whose focus is on incoming customers; and a checker, whose intent is solely on the stock leaving with exiting customers.

The cashier's focus, especially on #2 lane, is exclusively on the products brought by the customer to the head of the line, particularly when the checker's attention is occupied otherwise, and because the exit door is within a quick uninhibited walk. The checker tends to pay less attention fto custoners exiting from registers 1 and 2 because they are in his direct sight, and have gone nowhere else in the store. Nothing else not checked stuffed in their bags.

A man behind the woman then leaves the line with a full Walmart bag (which he might have conceivably brought in stuffed in his pocket, then loaded from the shelves) steps around the woman, and heads toward the exit. His bag instantly becomes Miss Grace's focus positionally, as leaving her line without payment, and thus becoming the first in her line instead of Miss Jacquette. The cashier immediately is responsible to call attention to his apparent intent to depart. (A shoplifter's ploy would be to leave whilst her attention was still fixed on ringing up the woman's purchases, perhaps in collusion with the woman.) He thus profiles himself, here unwittingly in this case, not by his skin color, but by his suspicious conduct.

>> " ... when I asked a man for a receipt,"
>> Souzzi says in her statement.

The aged, experienced, unflutterable, no longer gullible, employee calls for a simple, reasonable, and universally expected accounting. The man, not having the receipt and not knowing where it was, responded.

>> "The man said that the bag was the female's
>> who I was checking out. The man and the woman
>> both refused to show me the receipt, ..."

The man and the woman, having legitimately purchased the Walmart-bagged products, and lawfully possessing and transporting them, refused to honor either the implicit agreement with the store's policies by purchasing goods there, or the explicit execution of that policy at the whim of the exit checker, or of the #2 cashier selected for alertness to theft.

>> "... which is the company's policy."

However, the rights of the two to walk out without at this point surrendering the receipt, tested in court, are inviolable. The cashier can expect only willing compliance, not unwilling abandoning of their right to possess, enjoy, and transport their own possessions, even to a blouse, shoes, watch, or candy bar purchased in the store another day, without exhibiting a prior receipt. (But, yes, another tip suggesting a professional shoplifter at work. The profile gains bulk. No real skinning going on, just figuratively.)

>> "I paged my manager about three times. "

An excellent, four-way Class A move. Lawful and in the book of CYA. If no manager, superior, or tangible proof shows up--the customer walks, without further hindrance. It's the USA. But he shouldn't look back or come back.

>>"I walked around and took the bag from the man."

Oh, oh! Bad, bad move. Usurping authority. Forcibly removing a citizen's lawful property, especially when he/she is in 100% physical possession of it -- it isn't just sitting by him/her while she rummages in her purse. This is unlawful taking, and could get you killed. Suppose Miss Jacquette had put a wallet with a couple of thou in it; or better yet, a Platinum Visa Card, in the bag, or her car keys.. Or, Miss Grace coming out away from the register, suppose there is yet a third accomplice who empties the till and flees -- no identity? One doubts the manager's summing up will be a nod of approval, much less than being possibly arrested on the spot for forcible robbery.

>> "The female grabbed the bag from me, ..."

Which as the owner she has every right to do (it's still the US of A); and which every common shopper can do, or potential shoplifter can get away with, until they leave the premises; or if they just set the bag down and walk away when the bell clangs. That probably includes the parking lot.

>> " ... yelling at me saying the F word every other word." Which Miss Jacquette still can do without hindrance until arrested as a nuisance or for public disturbance. Or carried out by a security guard as persona non grata. And since the customer is always right until management proves her wrong, you will shut up, say "Yes, ma'am, " and retire to your register. Unless you are a scion of Sam Walton. In which case you would wisely do the same, and find another irresistible method of payback, if you are not genteel. But yo strike you, NO!

>> "I grabbed the bag back and the bag tore."

Miss Souzzi, you not only multiplied your error, you now bought your earned results from the person who was not quite yet fully and irrationally infuriated with your effrontery. Sorry, you are now playing outside the sidelines, expecting to score a goal for the gipper. You might get sympathy, but not wholesome undiluted approval from a person loving and living the United States Constitution law, State statutes, village ordinances, and just common sense. Only fools will stand up for you, UNTIL ...
everyone finally finds out that even in the presence of three sevice managers sent to step in, separate the aggressors, and apply some creative human resourcefulness, ...

>> "the female decked me."

This is what the whole case will turn on. Was she just reasonably and proportionally meted-out defense, protecting her own property, when it was being forcibly seized by you? Or was there an additional oomph of unnecessary maliciousness. while concurrently ignoring the avenue of intermediation?

It depends on the machinations of the prosecutor, the slyness of the defense lawyer, the wisdom of the judge(s) up to the SCOTUS, and the credulity of 12 "good" men with misplaced compassion. No one knows, except The God of Heaven (There is none "good" but The God.).

>> The court file contains no statements by Simmons
>> nor her companion.

They are already thinking ahead -- no statement w/o lawyer: a very wise decision if they are already in handcuffs after being arrested by local cops, then handed over to the New York State Police. They have been street-educated in legal procedure. The rest of us best take heed to this principle.

>> State Police have said that Simmons did have
>> a receipt for the items in the bag and is not
>> accused of stealing anything from Walmart.

State Police, having been informed by Walmart supervision of possible theft, sequestered the bag, inventoried it, found the receipt as part of the inventory, tallied the contents with the receipt, verified it, denied the Walmart theory, and returned the contents to the owner, lawful as of the time of purchase noted on the receipt. Charges of theft by the woman or companion are therefore dismissed without prejudice. Furthermore, as of August 21, 2011:

>> Proving intent of serious physical injury was
>> a key part of count one of the grand jury indictment,
>> the Class D felony of assault in the second degree,
>> but last week Judge Robert C. Noonan ruled there was
>> insufficient evidence to sustain the charge.

So, Miss Jacquetta Simmons is excused from this indicted charge due to insufficient evidence that she was not being serious enough about imparting physical damage, only throwing a full-bodied, thick-muscled, strong, gloveless, bone-crushing fist-blow to the face forceful enough to drive a hundredweight or more adult back ten feet., to justify pressing this charge. The Prosecutor gave up on it.

Expect more of this fairness in the judges rulings. How will sufficiency be defined in summing up evidence for the following charge? Where is the "social justice" here?

>> Under count two of the indictment, which Noonan upheld,
>> the prosecution need only prove intent to cause physical injury.

But:

>> Simmons will go to trial Aug. 20. She turned down a plea offer
>> that would have given Noonan the option of sentencing her
>> to prison time up to three-and-a-half years in prison. If convicted
>> at trial, Simmons could be sentenced up to eight years in prison.

That's all we get beforehand.

================

What can we gather and reconstruct from these reports? Let me speak my mind:

First, and worst, is that given all the rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States, New York State, Genesee County, and the city of Batavia, Miss Jacquette Simmons has exercised to the limit the laws regarding relationships between proprietors and customers, on the proprietors' premises, and with those there serving their needs and wants. But in this case, a young, strong, and vigorous woman has exceeded the depths of digust by treating a faithful servant with a beating the victim is not equipped to resist. We will see how Miss Jacquette's action, apprehension, and trial by jury works out.

Secondly, the reports indicate that an employee entrusted with the handling of cash sales as well as suppressing theft of products, while very alert and experienced in spotting the ploys of pilferers, also exceeded the authority given by her likely job specification and the personal rights of a customer, whose accidental behavior instinctively aroused Miss Grace's suspicion of dealing with potential shoplifters. Exercising the explicit policies instructed by her employer, though arousing the adversarial response of the customer, was correct. But she overstepped her boundaries and thus helped unnecessarily to escalate the balkiness of the customer beyond any expectation of intelligent resolution. Thirdly, this is not about hide, skin, or peel color, age, or religion; it is about human fallibility and attitude. It is about sin, both a simple misjudgment on the one hand; and a deep-down vile hate for anyone opposing one's will on the other.

Miss Grace's zeal for righteousness in business dealing is not avarice--she's not the business owner--it's just a desire to be a faithful, watchful, reliable, honest steward of her employer's wealth. Seems to me her excess in righteousness can be a sin of veniality, and also a bit wiser than God has yet permitted. It can be forgiven, with confession, repentance, restoration, and reconciliation.

But Miss Jacquette--ah, there is a big problem--an inappropriate high estimate of self-worth above others, a belligerence aroused by a real or supposed wrong, defince manifested as carrying vicious acts on defenseless others. Dear old Miss Grace Souzzi, the adversary/defendant is operating according to the god of this world who hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan. Such a person is of one's father the devil; determine to embrace his passionate lusts. He, the devil, was a murderer fom the beginning of this world, and lived not in truthfulness, for there is no truth in him. When he speaket a lie (F... you, you white b.....!), he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of lies.

If government allows her to escape retribution now, it will be by government given over to rejecting God's ways and judgment. But if not, imprisonment is not a cure or corrective. It is only a temporary setback for the disordered oppositional person defiant to death. For this is a mortal sin, not in the Romanist sense, but one whose only remedy is death to self, to Sin as a master, to the ways of the world, and to eternal, absolute life with and in The Christ as his bond-slave, for ever. And that may come to Miss Jacquette if she meets The Christ Who is in prisons, as well as outside them. Even I, a poor old discipler, have given messages in correctional facilities, to whom men responded sincerely. Some of those correctional facilities are called "churches," for what else is a faithful, working assembly of Christ's summoned ones, in a fundamental, immersionist Bible-preaching setting, whose members touch not the unclean thing of apostasy; and loving the old Authorized English version. Otherwise the only end for someone given over to apoplexy, as Miss Jacquette seems to be, is perpetual agonizing death in the hell-filled Lake of Fire. For one is born as nothing more than a slave. There are only two choices in life: a bond-slave to Satan with eternal death; or as a bondslave to The Christ, with eternal, absolute, abundant, joyful life! There are no other options.

So for you and I, Miss Grace (love that name!), we each best become a little more humble toward our fellow humans, and much more meek toward The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. An application might be from Ecclesiastes 7 verse 16: "Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself over-wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?" For Miss Jacquette, we might beseech her to consider the next verse 17: "Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?"

So, if I may humbly inquire, what is your choice, Miss SaraJohnson?

Selah --

-----------------------

Update: I just read a report on the opening arguments of her lawyer rendering Miss Jacquette's version of the incident. I think to her the truth is not a very precious thing, I see no tearful confession of a very wrong deed and speech, with a corollary humble request for forgiveness and offer to pay Miss Grace's medical bills, inconvenience, lost work, and suffering. What was said above about lying? Does her church exercise Scriptural church discipline? I say. Her lawyer will never put her on the stand, will she? A lawyer giving this account appears to be willing to float a lie herself. What a beginning. Think of the number "8" OK?

The elderly employee who was punched was a Walmart greeter and not a cashier. The attacker went after her when she asked to see the perp’s receipt upon exiting.

The updated reports have videos that indicated there was no loss prevention receipt checker between the cashier's register and the exit doors. The setup is exactly as I surmised. You'll find my topic post today quite interesting.

Thanks for your comments --

Ciao --