Shot fired by security guard at public meeting after his assault repelled by citizen (must see)

People have rights and this mans rights were violated and he felt threatened and I fully support what he did to defend himself and I wish more people had the balls to stand up and beat the living crap out of those who wish to steal our rights!
If more people pushed back and didn't take crap lying down so easily I think we would get a little less butt raped by those currently butt raping us.

I'm amazed how posters here have such a tenuous grasp of reality. Frightening, really.

The gaurd started it..grab something around my neck and be assured things are going to get exciting.

this is 100 percent the fault of the "SECURITY"

never does that security have the right to just walk up to someone and steal their personal belongings. the security guard deserved the ass kicking for violating a citizen's rights. assault is assault.

if some weightlifting jack ass walked up to me and tried physically intimidating me and attempted to steal my stuff via assault yeah I'm going to go ballistic on him.

especially since there is such a size, weight difference and the guy being armed while im not, I may even have the right to use lethal force to defend myself.

I have no sympathy for these "security" guards and to me its a shame the old man didn't kick their asses harder. they deserved it.

as for the putz who discharged his gun. he should be in jail. period.

for the dumb chick trying to make it seem like the guy was some molester falsly and instigating a situation. she should be in jail too. shes a weasel.

a reply to: Sremmos80
RE: "he made the first punch and plenty after."

Wrong, because he did not make the first assault. He was assaulted first. He did throw the first punch, but as the government workers mentioned, simply touching someone can sometimes be interpreted as an assault. So, the way the man with the camera had his hand touched in a way that he was attempting to steal the camera, it was certainly in an aggressive assault way, unlike the way the white-bearded man touched the lady, which was in an aggressiveness way.

Step 1: Private security guard attempts an armed robbery, beginning with an aggressive assault against a private citizen.
Step 2: Man defends himself.
Step 3: Police officer joins in the armed robbery, but manages to wrestle him to the ground without further beatings (though they were on camera and knew it, so that isn't particularly respectable), tells him he will go to prison for life.

So, what we have here is two government workers committing armed robbery, assault, and denying a citizen the right to redress, while also denying that citizen freedom of the press by having a camera. As usual, the government proves itself to job is it to rob(take without permission), cheat(deny rights regularly), steal(the IRS), and destroy(like this guys life, on purpose). The highest crime you can commit is to disrespect the false authorities who are overlords of most aspects our daily lives.

I think the government workers explain well how touching someone can be considered an attack, which the man then agrees with. So you see, everyone in the room by their own words believes the man in the white beard was assaulted by the security guy.

a reply to: Rocker2013

So just to be clear, if someone starts grabbing your property without permission, you think defending your self using physical force isn't a fair option? So, if I start grabbing something like a police officers police scanner, it would be inappropriate and just a bad thing for the cop to respond by punching me in the face?

I would guess you believe is that police officers should have more rights than everyone else, because I'd guess if I a cop did punch me after I tried to grab the police scanner from his hand, you'd say that was something the cop should defend against by punching me in the face.

a reply to: FlyingFox

I couldn't agree more; that going to both extremes on this thread. The guard was so out of line it makes my head spin- he was completely caught off guard by Skidmore's reaction which tells me that Norris (the guard ) was absorbed in his authority. As others have mentioned, he had no right to touch Skidmore or his property. Skidmore defended himself, it seems, as best as he knew or could. To me it does appear that Skidmore went a little over board with Norris, a punch may have sufficed BUT Norris immediately went for his gun after Skidmore backed off for a second and prompted him to continue his self defense.

When he is blindsided by the surly guard, Kochis, Skidmore reacts like a cornered wild cat, biting him in the face after the gunshot. I honestly can't see a moment when Skidmore's reactions trump the other actions. He was put in that position by the actions of the guards who were clearly high on authority.

Skidmore was obviously attempting to keep a level head and when Norris crossed the line, he lost it- understandably so.

Thanks for this thread. This should be on the national news.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
a reply to: FlyingFox

Just when the woman is saying how inappropriate it was for him to touch another person the security comes and immediately starts touching him. Ha ha you can't make this up.

She was saying how she has no recollection of security touching people right as baldy comes storming in touching people OMG. You can't script this.

It was obvious that woman was just waiting for him to do something so she could get him out of there. That security guard is sickening. What the hell did he expect to happen when he walked over and grabbed the guys camera ? When decent citizens are filming their government leaders at work to show others what they're doing, and a situation like this occurs, it makes me wonder even more about what they're up to when no one is watching ? They sure don't like being told they're not doing their job properly. Scummy people.

a reply to: rockintitz

Hypotheticals are just that and I never respond to them. What I would or would not doesn't change what did happen.
Little hint tho, it's not full blown attack some one for touching me.

You have a distortion of what self defense is imo, and if you act on it you will find out real quick in the eyes if the law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the guy at the end of the video saying 'He's lucky I didn't take his head off', clearly did intend to kill the citizen, but luck intervened to spare the man's life.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Look at the guy in the white t-shirt sitting middle of the wall... he doesnt flinch the entire video! He just sits there, real calm, real cool!

LOL

Normally you can say the just a grabbing of personal property is NOT a cause for this type of physical defense but when it's attached to your neck it is.

The officer grabbing the camera which was attached around the neck of skidmore in essence is now using a weapon on skidmore, it would not be that hard for a decent attorney to argue this point.

the security guard started the assault with a weapon (camera lanyard) and then when presented with a victim defending himself he decided to upgrade to another weapon (gun) .... That's not how gun laws work and he needs his rights stripped and charges brought up immediately.


As an aside, we don't know this guys past with these people, skidmore could be a total nut job and that's why they brought the security in in the first place, doesn't warrant the gun but it could make this whole case dicey in court.

.

That guy was flat out assaulted the moment that rent a moron touched him .

Stop fighting like little girls if you are going to fight learn how to be deadly .

I takes less than a tenth of a second to snatch a man by his eye sockets like a bowling ball .

Then you have options .

It takes another half second to crush the trachea and rip the throat out

I guess I'm not cut out to be and activist .

.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I completely understand your point that what the guard did wasn't on the high end of battery, but, it is still battery. You can, by law, be charged with battery by grabbing a persons hat and throwing it. You can be charged with assault by simply telling someone that you intend to throw them across the room.

Either of these situations can result in the victim justifiably defending themselves. Skidmore (the man with the camera) literally defended himself and his property (his property being attached to his person) from battery. Skidmore lost it when the guard grabbed his camera - but, judging by the guards ability to reach for, draw and fire a loaded gun, I don't think Skidmore went overboard in his self defense. The guard went overboard the moment he approached Skidmore and laid hands on his personal property without so much as a "lawful order".

Skidmore is lucky in more ways than one. The article I could find from the press in that area is so far from what the video shows I had to shake my head.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: FlyingFox

The "citizen" assaulted the man, so I have little sympathy. He escalated that situation beyond what was reasonable.
You can argue about whether it's right or wrong to be denied the opportunity to film in a meeting all you like, that DOESN'T excuse the man assaulting him in any way.

The security guy probably shouldn't have grabbed him like that, but he in turn shouldn't have then flown into a violent fit and forced the man to defend himself.

Both of these guys are idiots, but the guy waving his fists around like a wind-up toy is the one who deserves to be in jail.

You've got to be kidding right...

a reply to: FlyingFox
I had also psoted elsewhere the guy that fired came on too,aggressive, appears unstable afterwards, while his partners wrestles with camera guy he is touching his arms, fidgeting, touching his head, checking his pockets, i would question whether he was fit for the job.

a reply to: RickyD

What is there to be kidding about?

Two wrongs don't make a right, the man with the camera escalated the situation ten fold when he started his attack.

All over getting grabbed?

They were both in the wrong, but yet we are championing the man that also assaulted a man.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Either of these situations can result in the victim justifiably defending themselves. Skidmore (the man with the camera) literally defended himself and his property (his property being attached to his person) from battery.

For the first 5 seconds sure, when he continues his assault, it is no long self defense.

Self defense isn't just "He touched me now I can do what I want for as long as I want".

a reply to: Sremmos80

The threat was clearly still active and skidmore could probably tell he was going for a gun. This guys lucky skidmore was a bumbling old man, any one even half trained could of killed the first guard 10 times over in self defense.

This will be interesting to see play out

a reply to: H34T533K3R

He is checking to make sure he didn't shoot himself. Then I think it sets in how irresponsible his discharge was and that he could have killed an unintended target. What really gets me after all that checking himself and what looks like worry on his face, he then puts his hand back on his gun. Like if that old man broke free he would have shot again!

There is a lawful way to approach that situation that starts with verbal commands and identifying yourself. Neither was done and that old man was a 30 year marine vet as well as a retired corrections officer. He knew what he could and couldn't do. You can clearly see when his camera is grabbed the officer is pulling enough to make the man feel the need to stand and keep tension on his lanyard to prevent him being pulled. There is a pause where it looks like the security guy puts more strength into his pull the man does the same and I guess he felt he could not out match the pull of the officer. That's when the blows fly. He backs off which is akin to fleeing and this is when the gun is drawn. If you are defending yourself against someone and they back off you are not allowed to then escalate the force. This is akin to shooting a fleeing robber which will land you in prison. Those security guys are not officers and do not have the same authority as one does. They are no different than any employee of that building. Further their hiding of their names and their overall deemeanor show that they clearly have something to hide which is probably their blaten disregard for the law, proper procedure, and the rights of others. They are more hired muscle or thugs than a righteous authority!