Conflict and Loathing Among Signature Gatherers + Battery, Slurs, and Self-Defense

From a decision by L.A. Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller in Legorreta v. Cobham, decided Mar. 10 but just posted on Westlaw last week:

[A]s of … the date of the incident, … [Mr. Legorreta] was about 68 years of age. He was working as a “caller” or petitioner for signatures on state petitions for which he and his nephew would obtain income for each approved signature. He and his nephew [Mr. Proo] set up a booth, table, and chairs in a designated Free Speech area near the exit at the Walmart store located at 1827 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, CA. Legorreta would call out to Walmar[t] customers as they left the store and tried to get them to sign a petition. Proo was the primary petitioner and Legorreta worked for him.

Legorreta states that he and nephew Proo arrived at the Walmart Free-Speech zone on the Walmart site early and that during the day he primarily sat around and solicited signatures by calling out to persons exiting the Walmart store. A rival group of petitioners led by Cobham, appeared at the site and commenced competing with Legorreta and Proo for signatures by attempting to solicit signatures from the same group of persons. The Cobham group did not have a booth or table and did not confine themselves to one area but circulated in and around the exit soliciting signatures including the area adjacent to the location of the Proo/Legorreta booth.

During the day-long signature gathering efforts, stress and tensions arose between the different groups of signature gatherers and it significantly increased with Cobham and Trujillo [a member of his crew] arrived. Legorreta, who identifies as gay, was repeatedly verbally assaulted by Cobham and his group with epithets calling him a “fucking faggot” and a “fucking loser.” Mr. Proo was engaging in criticism of Cobham’s team because of the name calling directed to Legorreta and himself, his perception that the Cobham team was violating the rules of solicitation of signatures by following people into the parking lot, and because Cobham was “stealing signatures.”

The two groups accused each other of signature stealing, that is, getting a Walmart customer who was exiting the store to sign for one but not the other group’s petition. There was no evidence that Legorreta was the aggressor in any of the back-and-forth insults, accusations, and name calling. There is convincing evidence, however, that Legorreta was being insulted and intimidated by the Cobham group.

Toward the evening hours (around 5:45 p.m.) Cobham came up to the table where Legorreta was sitting and shook the table and called him, as he had in a number of prior insults of the same nature, a “fucking faggot.” Proo interpreted this as threatening Legorreta with physical harm. Cobham then left the immediate area. Legorreta then stood up to go inside the Walmart store to complain about Cobham and his crew’s repeated insults and what Legorreta perceived as rude and unfair competition (signature stealing, insults.) Exhibit 2, a tape from Walmart’s security camera, documents without audio the pertinent series of events. Exhibit 1, the Police Report, at Page 5, full paragraph 6, which the parties stipulated to admit into evidence states regarding the video:

“V/Legorreta approaches S/Cobham in from the “Wal-Mart” northeast entrance sliding doors. S/Cobham suddenly forcefully pushed V/Legorreta backwards out of view of the camera. S/Cobham appears to rush forwards into V/Legorreta with raised fists then moves out of view.”

The Sheriff’s report and investigation supports the conclusion that Cobham is the aggressor in the fight and that Legorreta did not constitute a threat of physical violence to Cobham. The police report recommends that Cobham be charged with a violation of Penal Code § 368(b)(1) for willfully causing an elder to suffer unjustifiable physical pain, a felony, punishable by imprisonment of three years. [The opinion doesn't discuss whether Cobham was indeed charged. -EV]

[Discussion of still more tension omitted. -EV]

In the video, the court notes that as Trujillo approached Legorreta, Cobham suddenly jumped in between Trujillo and Legorreta. Mr. Cobham is younger, more fit, and muscular. The police report indicates that Cobham was 42 years of age at the time. On the contrary, Mr. Legorreta was older at age 68 and not fit or muscular…. Mr. Cobham immediately pushed himself onto Legorreta in what appears to be an effort at bodily intimidation. They were standing with Cobham’s chest or belly against or near to Legorreta’s belly. They were face to face when there was a verbal exchange.

The content of the verbal exchange is in dispute at trial. Mr. Cobham claims that Mr. Legorreta put his left arm on Mr. Cobham but the court’s view of the evidence is that this did not happen, and the investigating officer did not describe this either. After the verbal comment, Mr. Cobham forcefully pushed (as described by the police who viewed the video) and then beat Mr. Legorreta. Prior to Cobham’s assault and battery, there is no evidence that Mr. Legorreta was in any way a threat to Cobham and it also appears that Legorreta did not even try to defend himself.

Mr. Legorreta told the police, as documented by Exhibit 1, the Sheriff’s report that before the battery, Cobham and he engaged in the following verbal exchange: “This is why I voted for Trump, because of you people.” Cobham replied: “What do you mean, you people.” Mr. Legorreta claims he then said: “You know what I mean.”

Cobham agreed with Legorreta’s version of the conversation and reported to the police the nearly identical conversation. This agreement in content of the conversation is the strongest evidence of the verbal exchange and that it did not include Legorreta’s use of the “N” word. In that statement, Cobham did not tell the police that Legorreta called him the “N” word. However, at trial Cobham now states that Legorreta called him a “Nigger” in that confrontation. Mr. Legorreta, a former civil rights activist, claims he did not make this statement and would never use this term. This denial is credible to the court even in light of the prior statement to police. Proo testified that he was nearby and did not hear Legorreta make this statement. Exhibit 3, video of the later portion of the beating, supports that it was only Cobham who used the “N” word. Mr. Cobham, who employed Mr. Trujillo, did not bring Trujillo in as an important witness to corroborate his claim, which causes the court to distrust Cobham’s version of events.

A vague handwritten statement that Mr. Legorreta admits that he gave to a police officer in his handwriting appears at first to contradict this finding. Legorreta attempts to explain the letter by saying that he was in the ambulance, confused by the head trauma from the beating, and under duress caused by the officers wanting a statement before he was taken to the hospital. In the statement, Legorreta stated that “Being a practitioner of political issues Black Guy got angry at the fact that I used the ‘N’ word which is Freedom of Speech which is understood by most political workers.”

Importantly, the statement does not state that he directed the word at Cobham or that the statement was made immediately before the beating. Since the police report prepared after Legorreta’s statement does not indicate that the beating was incited by the use of the “N” word, the court finds that this statement was not an admission of his use of the word directed to Cobham or that the use of the word had anything to do with the battery.

The court finds that Legorreta did not direct any comment using the “N” word to Cobham. In the court’s view, after reading the police report with Legorreta’s statement, Cobham seized upon Mr. Legorreta’s vague statement to the Sheriff regarding the use of the “N” word to create a false narrative about how the incident occurred that in his mind would give justification and defense to his battery on Legorreta.

Whether or not Legorreta used this word, Cobham was not justified in punching and beating Mr. Legorreta. It was only after the battery was concluded that the word “nigga” is found on Exhibit 3: Mr. Cobham used it himself, apparently also in an attempt to imply that he had beaten Legorreta because that is what Legorreta had called him. In the court[']s view there was no prior usage of the term by Legorreta. The video also shows that Mr. Cobham was stating to observers that Legorreta should “get off him,” implying that Legorreta was the aggressor when that was clearly not the fact.

Mr. Cobham appears to attempt to justify his battery on Legorreta by stating that Legorreta ran toward him and as an ex-military person, “he is not going to allow anyone to run at him and not do anything about it.” However, both Exhibits 2 and 3 document a different set of facts. Legorreta was responding to Mr. Cobham by calling him an “asshole” but in the portion of the video of the incident admitted as Exhibit 3, he was turned and trying to walk away from Cobham when Cobham rushed him and pummeled him.

It should be noted that Exhibit 3 is a compilation of videos that the parties “found” on the internet and that they do not know who recorded these. No witness laid the foundation for these videos. The manipulation and planting of these videos, in the court’s opinion, calls into question whether they are accurate. They do not have any timestamp and do not show the entire set of events in the correct order.

It is the court’s belief that it was Mr. Trujillo or one of Cobham’s crew that recorded the original video and that the video has been edited and planted on the internet in order to omit the full chain of events and give a distorted view of events that would support Cobham’s defense. In particular, it is the court’s belief that there was willful suppression or manipulation of evidence regarding the full original video and that the video would, if fully produced, have confirmed the version of events testified to by Legorreta and Proo. There is a missing gap in the video that would have included any statement by Legorreta of the “N” word if he had made it. The court does not give the video any weight except for the portions endorsed by Legorreta.

The court went on to conclude that Legorreta proved Cobham had tortiously battered him, and rejected Cobham’s claim of self-defense:

While Mr. Legorreta may have been calling Cobham an “asshole” and making other comments, and even if he called Cobham the “N” word these events do not justify or provide a defense of self-defense. Mr. Legorreta was an older frail man who was merely standing in his own space when Mr. Cobham pushed up against him in the ongoing course of events. Mr. Legoretta did not run toward Cobham and was in fact turning away when he was attacked. The video does not show that Legoretta touched Cobham or constituted a threat to Cobham before the beating. No force of any kind was justified to Cobham. The damages sustained by Legorreta were entirely the fault of Mr. Cobham….

Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $57,500 for past and future general damages….

Darren Richie represents plaintiff.

The post Conflict and Loathing Among Signature Gatherers + Battery, Slurs, and Self-Defense appeared first on Reason.com.