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

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

Sremmos does have a point.

Think hell just froze over...

I know, right?


I just had to go put on a sweater.

I think what we are seeing in our country now is an attitude by security/cops that anyone disruptive or in disagreement is a criminal and must be dealt with severely.

Who in their reasonable mind pulls a gun in a public meeting over an unarmed person. I imagine this dangerous security guard will get an award.

Emotion driven activism is worthless and a detriment to any possible positive change.
This cat was looking for a fight and how anyone can defend that can only be based on their emotional investment in this type of "issue".
You cannot persuade politicians regardless of what level through any type of activism that does not involve large political donations, period, end of story.
This "activist" was way out of line. These "politicians" are making decisions in "executive" (private) meeting discussing what their constituents need. Constituents = Highest bidder. Your rights - Your concerns - You voice - mean nothing, you have no right to be privy to meetings concerning laws, regulations and the direction of your community unless you are a high dollar donor.
You just can't justify disrespectfully handling someone because you believe you were handled at some other time by security. How many fallacies are conjured up in that argument alone? Right.
The security dude wasn't attacking anyone and guess what? He kind of has the right to grab and toss you out if you're acting like a wanker. Attacking the security guy? I can't believe people are debating this. The security guy could have shot this idiot dead as after the first volley of blows the guy came back to deliver more. The security guy did right by pulling his weapon but was dead wrong in missing but you can see clearly the attacker pivots or he would have got a shot to his pelvic girdle.
There is no logical argument that can justify this activists attack on the security guard.
There are logical arguments to back the actions of the security guard.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I do understand your point that Skidmore's reaction is over the top. In a way, it is, but to his defense he was, by the word of the law, a victim of battery. His method of defending himself was direct and, in my honest opinion, feeble and perhaps stupid. BUT, I am making the point that he was defending himself and his property and now adding to that point that his assault does not require a gun to stop.

Was he wrong? Not in my opinion. Especially after the shot was fired. This is clear abuse of authority on the part of Norris. From start to finish. No request that Skidmore leave, or stop, or anything. He simply walks up to him and grabs the camera which is attached by a lanyard around his neck as if he felt that Skidmore had no right to defend himself, which he did the entire time.

How can shooting an unarmed person in a meeting be justified? The rent a cop is lucky he missed.

Wow good thing he kept wailing on that stupid security guy or he be dead! I like to think I would have done the same thing if someone tried stealing my camera!

a reply to: Sremmos80

Also find it funny he doesnt start calling for help and that he is being assaulted till after he is on the ground.

Well, in the beginning it was one on one, but at the end when he called for help it as 4 or 5 on one, and a gunshot was fired, he was cuffed, and it appeared there was someone on his back. The guy didn't appear to be young, so this likely had him struggling for air at this point.

as much as i sympathize with anyone who is mistreated by security, its never a good idea to walk into the lions den and tweak their noses. he brought that ruckus on himself.

originally posted by: imitator
Wow good thing he kept wailing on that stupid security guy or he be dead! I would have done the same thing if someone tried stealing my camera!

no, the security dude was on top of him. and to be fair its not like the civilian had done a real good job of being cooperative. and when i say cooperative i mean doing something other than finding out how to be annoying without being malicious. being passive aggressive is a good way to turn a neutral situation into a very hostile one. i would be willing to bet he has learned how NOT to do things at least. he might still think he is right, but he wont do this again.

i wish i knew why he approached the person at the computer, apparently the trigger was some kind of "bodily contact" thing that the lady just jumped on. probably because she was itching to get rid of him. making waves and getting results are not always the same thing.

.

It as simple as this .

He knew they were going to violate his rights the moment the rent a goons showed up .

He had a choice to make

1 . allow the violation of his person and his rights and peacefully comply .

2 . resist the felonious assault with all you got and accept the consequences which would most likely be death in this circumstance .

His proper choice was #1

A passive response would have strengthened his position in court .
If he has the fortune to peruse it . But they would have to list his assailants or as they call themselves "victims"

Resisting any LEO in any form and you will loose .. They will Lie.. Exaggerate ...and Conspire openly against you .

Seek justice the old way because there is No Justice otherwise .

It seems callous and over the top but its true .

.

a reply to: R0CR13

Exactly. Disobedience is a crucial activity to unlawful acts by authority. Authority wins until there is a complete and total retaliation against it. This maybe frivolous in the end on the part of Skidmore, but his disobedience, in my mind, was completely justified whether or not authority agrees.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Justified under the old laws but incorrect under the new tyranny and that's what all this is about .

. .

a reply to: Sremmos80

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".

The reason he continues punching the guard is because the guard had just pulled a gun and tried to kill him.
When someone has just attempted to try and kill you then yes you can pretty much do what the hell you want to protect yourself.

Government bodies are notorious for not allowing freedom of speech. If they don't like what a person says then it's kick them out. The officials seems to think they own the government that serves the people.

a reply to: Sremmos80

This is not standing up to tyranny, the pen is mightier then the sword.

In this case, the guard was trying to remove the 'pen' (camera). The guy says that he has been handled by guards before-so who is to say what might have happened had the guard got his camera away from him? Because we know the cameras in the room could very easily gotten "lost" or misplaced.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: R0CR13

Exactly. Disobedience is a crucial activity to unlawful acts by authority. Authority wins until there is a complete and total retaliation against it. This maybe frivolous in the end on the part of Skidmore, but his disobedience, in my mind, was completely justified whether or not authority agrees.

What disobedience to unlawful acts--by brushing the lady's boob?

In the video at the entrance he claims that they were there to "observe and record," which obviously turns out to be untrue. Then, when seated, he rails on and on about them not "having the right agenda" and that they were going to go by "his agenda." He then marches over to lean way in over the laptop in front of the lady and brushes her boob--you can clearly see her recoil and say "excuse me" as she covers her right breast. The lady in the black shirt immediately jumps up to get security as the "activist" goes back to his seat and continues to argue about touching the staffer--something he does not deny but tries to justify by saying "well, your staff touches us." The security then comes in and walks over and touches his camera--he does not tug or yank and he really doesn't have much a grip or is applying much pressure as the activist in able to stand and turn to face him they look at each other for a second and then the activist starts throwing punches.

He looks like a self-righteous douchebag with a chip on his irrational shoulder to me.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It's seems clear who writes your paycheck .

Under current Laws even the threat of assault is ASSUALT !

They violated his rights period .

They should have asked him to politely leave . and called a uniformed officer if he refused .

.

a reply to: NavyDoc

And Norris is somehow not a self-righteous douchebag for walking up to him without so much as a "Hey man, let's calm down"? Then grabbing his personal property as if he is rightfully entitled to do so. And Skidmore, the activist, clearly speaks to him, though it is inaudible, which I would surmise to be a "Let go" or something to that effect which is much more of a courtesy than Norris offered him.

When someone has been pushed to their limits they will act out of character, and I highly doubt Skidmore has a record of this - I tried to check, and unlike my state, Ohio seems a bit more conservative than my state in those regards.

But I do suppose that going belly up to authority for the sake of personal safety is more palatable to those who find authority comforting.

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: NavyDoc

It's seems clear who writes your paycheck .

Under current Laws even the threat of assault is ASSUALT !

They violated his rights period .

They should have asked him to politely leave . and called a uniformed officer if he refused .

.

No reason to start with the personal attacks. I'm simply making observations on the video. I've already said that the use of the gun was improper.

a reply to: NavyDoc

He looks like a self-righteous douchebag with a chip on his irrational shoulder to me.

Weird, because I was thinking the same thing about so called guard.