YASeCT: guy goes ballistic after guards try to take his camera, gets shot at

[brianmanahan]

whoo boy, this escalated quickly!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-eJ8eNfd0

TL;DW: security guards try to take camera from guy at a richland county commisioner's meeting. guy goes nuts, punching and biting, and guards attempt to shoot him but somehow miss at point blank range.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ugh.

I certainly agree with the sentiment that photography is not a crime, but Mr. Skidmore is clearly not just a photographer - he has an agenda and, in this case, an over-sensitivity to having his right to photograph threatened. What he did was not passive resistance - he repeatedly punched two securities in the officer in the face and bit one in the face. Right or wrong, he's lucky to be alive, and can and appropriately should be prosecuted in my opinion.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Since there are clearly camera's outside of Mr. Skidmore that means that security should not have been concerned with it. They were, which tells me they were intending to cause a confrontation the moment they were called in. Secondly, that moron with the gun has no business owning one the way he handled that situation. He said nothing but walked straight up and grabbed at the camera. smh

I will also say that Skidmore may have went too far with his second barrage of hellfire fists. Although one could argue that after the first set he had to continue being that his attacker was armed. But just like always its the citizen who gets locked up and the 'authority' figures are hero's.

 

[JSt0rm]

Ugh.

I certainly agree with the sentiment that photography is not a crime, but Mr. Skidmore is clearly not just a photographer - he has an agenda and, in this case, an over-sensitivity to having his right to photograph threatened. What he did was not passive resistance - he repeatedly punched two securities in the officer in the face and bit one in the face. Right or wrong, he's lucky to be alive, and can and appropriately should be prosecuted in my opinion.

So if your rights are violated the only recourse is in the court room? You have no right to defend your rights at that moment in time?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Since there are clearly camera's outside of Mr. Skidmore that means that security should not have been concerned with it. They were, which tells me they were intending to cause a confrontation the moment they were called in. Secondly, that moron with the gun has no business owning one the way he handled that situation. He said nothing but walked straight up and grabbed at the camera. smh

I will also say that Skidmore may have went too far with his second barrage of hellfire fists. Although one could argue that after the first set he had to continue being that his attacker was armed. But just like always its the citizen who gets locked up and the 'authority' figures are hero's.

I totally agree the security officers should have given him verbal commands before touching him, but that didn't give him the right to start punching them in the face.

I can't really judge whether it was appropriate to draw a gun - certainly they should have been able to handle the situation without deadly force, but on the other hand he was acting very violent and there was at least a risk of his grabbing one of their weapons. The whole thing happened so quickly that it's hard to say for certain.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So if your rights are violated the only recourse is in the court room? You have no right to defend your rights at that moment in time?

You don't have the right to start throwing punches to defend your rights. If all he'd done was wrap his hands around the camera and refuse to let them take it, his actions would be defensible, but punching two uniformed security officers was not. What's curious is that, according to his Facebook page, he is a former security guard . . .

 

[RampantAndroid]

The guards seem to have badges on their belts, but they made no orders to him - they just grabbed at him, which I think is wrong. The moron that fired the gun is lucky he didn't hit someone else in the room. Skidmore tried to back away and was tethered by his camera around his neck (for whatever reason...) He then punched and tried to back away, saw a gun and went back in.

Dunno about you, but I think that, given there was no "sir, I'm asking you to leave" at the outset, just the guard grabbing...you could argue it was defense.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The guards seem to have badges on their belts, but they made no orders to him - they just grabbed at him, which I think is wrong. The mron that fired the gun is lucky he didn't hit someone else in the room. Skidmore tried to back away and was tethered by his camera around his neck (for whatever reason...) He then punched and tried to back away, saw a gun and went back in.

Dunno about you, but I think that, given there was no "sir, I'm asking you to leave" at the outset, just the guard grabbing...you could argue it was defense.

Skidmore will assert that defense, and maybe he will be successful. I do think the security officers handled this badly. I don't see that as justification for repeatedly punching them in the face and biting them, though.

 

[JSt0rm]

You don't have the right to start throwing punches to defend your rights. If all he'd done was wrap his hands around the camera and refuse to let them take it, his actions would be defensible, but punching two uniformed security officers was not. What's curious is that, according to his Facebook page, he is a former security guard . . .

So I can take something out of someones hands that they are legally allowed to have and if they hit me for it I can retaliate with deadly force?

 

[brianmanahan]

as an aside, it's amazing how that guy in the white shirt doesn't even flinch!

 

[waggy]

wait..so its ok for police to deny us our rights with force. but we can't defend our rights with force?

gotcha.

those officers should be charged with attempted murder. that was way more force used then for a person taking pictures.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So I can take something out of someones hands that they are legally allowed to have and if they hit me for it I can retaliate with deadly force?

As I see it you can't conflate the steps of this situation like that. We have three separate actions, each of which must be analyzed separately. Potentially either or both of Skidmore and the officers might be charged, or potentially nobody would be.

First, the officers tried to take the camera. I have no earthly idea whether Skidmore had the legal right to have the camera and shoot footage under the circumstances. I would guess he did, but the County could (probably) legally have implemented a rule prohibiting filming. Assuming (for purposes of discussion) that they did, the security officers would likely have been justified in taking the camera.

Second, Skidmore punched and bit the officers. Assuming the officers had the legal right to take the camera, Skidmore would have committed assault and battery by punching them and biting them. A prosecutor would argue that even if the officers acted unlawfully, that did not justify Skidmore's use of force, and legally I think that argument is probably correct. The analysis becomes somewhat complicated since they were trying to take something off of his person (and thus touching him), but my sense is that the use of force to defend his property would probably only be a winning argument in the minority of states that permit the use of force in defense of property.

Third, after Skidmore punched the officers, one of them drew a weapon and fired it (potentially an accidental discharge - that is not clear - but in any case drawing the gun seemed clearly intentional). Assuming that was an intentional firing, the officer would have to justify his use of force by showing that he reasonably believed Skidmore was likely to inflict death or great bodily harm on himself or the other officer. No idea where a fact-finder would come down on that, but the fact that Skidmore bit the other guy in the face would not work in his favor.

The situation is not without its complexities, but in any event I think it's appropriate that Skidmore be prosecuted. If a jury sides with him based on the facts of the case, so be it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

as an aside, it's amazing how that guy in the white shirt doesn't even flinch!

Yeah, he has nerves of steel. At the end the security officers say something to him that I took as an implication that he was somehow at fault - he responds that he didn't do anything. I gather there was some past history to the situation that we are not privy to.

 

[Sulaco]

So I can take something out of someones hands that they are legally allowed to have and if they hit me for it I can retaliate with deadly force?

You really are a blithering idiot.

 

[JSt0rm]

As I see it you can't conflate the two steps like that. We have three separate actions, each of which must be analyzed separately. Potentially either or both of Skidmore and the officers might be charged, or potentially nobody would be.

lets do it.

First, the officers tried to take the camera. I have no earthly idea whether Skidmore had the legal right to have the camera and film under the circumstances. I would guess he did, but the County could (probably) legally have implemented a rule prohibiting filming. Assuming (for purposes of discussion) that they did, the security officers would likely have been justified in taking the camera.

But that law that they made (would have made) would of been unconstitutional.

Second, Skidmore punched and bit the officers. Assuming the officers had the legal right to take the camera, Skidmore would have committed assault and battery by punching them and biting them.

Why would you assume someone has the legal right to take your camera when its been ruled that you have the right to film in public spaces?

A prosecutor would argue that even if the officers acted unlawfully, that did not justify Skidmore's use of force, and legally I think that argument is probably correct. (The analysis becomes somewhat complicated since they were trying to take something off of his person (and thus touching him), but my sense is that the use of force to defend his property would probably only be a winning argument in the minority of states that permit the use of force in defense of property.)

He wasnt defending his property. He was defending himself. The security guard was pulling on a cable wrapped around his neck.

Third, after Skidmore punched the officers, one of them drew a weapon and fired it (potentially an accidental discharge - that is not clear - but in any case drawing the gun seemed clearly intentional). Assuming that was an intentional firing, the officer would have to justify his use of force by showing that he reasonably believed Skidmore was likely to inflict death or great bodily harm on himself or the other officer. No idea where a fact-finder would come down on that, but the fact that Skidmore bit the other guy in the face would not work in his favor.

In a street fight you do what you can. Would it of been better to headbutt the rent a cop in the orbital bone? Probably shattering it? The gun went off. If I was in that situation I would be putting my thumbs through the cops eyes to get away from death. If someone starts shooting at me they better kill me because I will either run or do serious damage in return hopefully saving my life. Looks like this guy couldnt run so I guess he was going to have to fight for his life. Oh well I guess the security was trained in how to deal with situations like this.

The situation is not without its complexities, but in any event I think it's appropriate that Skidmore be prosecuted. If a jury sides with him based on the facts of the case, so be it.

It's ohio. The guy is fucked. Doesnt mean he wasnt right though.

 

[MrPickins]

wait..so its ok for police to deny us our rights with force. but we can't defend our rights with force?

No. That is what the court is for. (Does that really need to be explained to you?)

those officers should be charged with attempted murder. that was way more force used then for a person taking pictures.

Was it enough force to use on a person who as actively attacking with everything they had?

 

[JSt0rm]

You really are a blithering idiot.

And yet you barely formed a coherent retort. Good job. I bet you got all C's in school

 

[JSt0rm]

No. That is what the court is for. (Does that really need to be explained to you?)



Was it enough force to use person who as actively attacking with everything they had?

So everyone can only defend their rights in court? So we should go ahead and enact all those gun laws now. Since people arent allowed to defend their rights anymore.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

lets do it.

But that law that they made (would have made) would of been unconstitutional.

Not necessarily. Laws prohibiting cameras in courthouses are legal and routinely upheld.

Why would you assume someone has the legal right to take your camera when its been ruled that you have the right to film in public spaces?

Again, not necessarily. A conference room in a public building is not, in some respects, a "public space," and I have no idea what rules the County had in place. Even if there were an unconstitutionally broad ban on cameras in that county, it would not give him the right to use force to defend his camera.

He wasnt defending his property. He was defending himself. The security guard was pulling on a cable wrapped around his neck.

That depends on one's perspective. Certainly he could have pulled off the camera and handed it to the officer without fear of any more physical conflict. As I said, I think the officers handled this badly but that didn't give him the right to use endless violence to defend himself.

In a street fight you do what you can. Would it of been better to headbutt the rent a cop in the orbital bone? Probably shattering it? The gun went off. If I was in that situation I would be putting my thumbs through the cops eyes to get away from death. If someone starts shooting at me they better kill me because I will either run or do serious damage in return hopefully saving my life. Looks like this guy couldnt run so I guess he was going to have to fight for his life. Oh well I guess the security was trained in how to deal with situations like this.

Now we are getting into ridiculous e-peen internet tough guy talk. Your "resolution" of this situation would very likely lead to you sitting on Death Row. I find this kind of stupid rhetoric counter-productive and silly.

It's ohio. The guy is fucked. Doesnt mean he wasnt right though.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. That will be up to a jury.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Don Vito, since you don't seem to think that grabbing the camera was assault, and therefore no reason to defend oneself, I have to ask what would the appropriate reaction be if it was flipped? A police officer with a camera recording something and a citizen grabs at it without saying anything, discharges a weapon erroneously and proceeds to struggle with the officer.

I'm willing to bet you side with the officer when the only difference in the two situations is the badge.

 

[NoStateofMind]

No. That is what the court is for. (Does that really need to be explained to you?)

Tell that to police when they feel threatened. Oh wait, that doesn't apply in reverse? I didn't think so. Go on and plunge your head in the sand, you're not the first and certainly won't be the last.

 

[MrPickins]

So everyone can only defend their rights in court? So we should go ahead and enact all those gun laws now. Since people arent allowed to defend their rights anymore.

Unless you're talking full-scale revolt, then yes, you defend your rights in court.

Again, does this really need to be explained?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Don Vito, since you don't seem to think that grabbing the camera was assault, and therefore no reason to defend oneself, I have to ask what would the appropriate reaction be if it was flipped? A police officer with a camera recording something and a citizen grabs at it without saying anything, discharges a weapon erroneously and proceeds to struggle with the officer.

I'm willing to bet you side with the officer when the only difference in the two situations is the badge.

I didn't say grabbing the camera was not assault. That depends on whether the officer had any legal authority to take it. I do think these officers mishandled the situation, in any event.

That very issue is the nub of why your hypothetical is so different from this situation. There are indisputably situations in which a police officer can lawfully take a camera from a civilian. There is no situation (at least not that I can think of) in which a civilian is legally authorized to take a camera from a police officer by force.

As I said, if Skidmore had just passively resisted their taking the camera, this would have been a totally different scenario. I don't see how the officers taking his camera justified his whaling on them and biting one in the face.

I am open to seeing one or both of these officers prosecuted as well, but that does not change my opinion that it's appropriate to charge Skidmore.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Unless you're talking full-scale revolt, then yes, you defend your rights in court.

Again, does this really need to be explained?

I think a better question is: if you believe an officer is targeting you for no good reason and fear for your life, can you defend yourself?

You can defend your right to life with lethal force in many places in the US.

 

[MrPickins]

Tell that to police when they feel threatened. Oh wait, that doesn't apply in reverse? I didn't think so. Go on and plunge your head in the sand, you're not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Look at my previous posts on the topic; I think you'll find I am quite vocal against police brutality/abuse of power.