It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: NavyDoc

The 1st amendment protects the right of the people from the government "infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

From the video, he had the camera to expose the meeting as p representative of a free press.
From the video, up to the point of the security guards approach, he was peaceably assembled and petitioning the government for redress of his grievances.

So, how, again, does this not apply here???


No he wasn't. He was being argumentative and disruptive at a meeting. There was no petitioning. He was not being peaceable. Heck, he said himself that they were not talking about stuff he wanted to talk about and that they had to go by his agenda and he proceeded to talk over everybody.




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It is hard to believe he was trying to neutralize the guard. Skidmore was a 30 year marine and former corrections officer. I can kill someone with one hit, so I am sure he has been trained as a war fighter and knows very well how to neutralize an attacker. He didn't appear to be trying to do that. After the initial punch, he appears to go to an open handed, palm-heal punch (somewhat, not proper use of a palm-heal). That security punks weapon would have been mine if he pulled it at close range like that. I am pretty sure Skidmore would have been trained for that as well. However, unless you have been in a hand-hand combat scenario a few times, a person may lose their ability to carry out their training. Training properly and rigorously enough is done so you will automatically react as your training just takes over.

It seems that there is a law for civilians, and a law for guards/LEO...NOT! Bottom line is if someone assaults me by grabbing an object that is wrapped around my neck by a lanyard, that is a potential life threatening or severe bodily injury situation. I would have neutralized and disarmed the person doing it to preserve my well being. Now that being said, it would be totally different if a uniformed LEO came up or non-uniformed and showed ID and gave me a command to come with him, etc. I would comply and no problems would exist.

The security guard Norris, in this instance, is responsible for the initiation and progression of the incident. He NEVER said a word. He just went and committed assault/battery.




In some jurisdictions assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim while battery is the actual physical impact on another person. If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened (or someone attempted to touch them), then the crime is assault. If the victim has been touched in a painful, harmful, violent, or offensive way by the person committing the crime, this might be battery. Even a minor touching can qualify as battery providing it is painful, harmful, or offensive to the victim.

In certain jurisdictions, assault and battery are often paired together as one offense. The reason for this is, when someone commits battery they usually have the intent to harm, and threaten the person before committing the physical act. There will also be different degrees of battery including first degree, second degree, and third degree. Each degree describes how serious the crime may be.

In other jurisdictions, assault is defined in broader terms as any intentional physical contact with an individual without their consent. In these states, the definition of assault encompasses the definition of battery of other jurisdictions. Further, like the states that have separate definitions for assault and battery, these jurisdictions generally have three degrees of assault. The degrees of assault determine the range of punishment to be administered for the crime.


Source

So, bottom line is Skidmore was the initial victim of a crime and he has the absolute right to defend himself. And you need to understand that defense was unarmed with an armed perpetrator. It is not your responsibility to wait and see if the perpetrator is going to use that weapon on you. And in this case, he almost did have that weapon cause severe bodily injury or death. That is why I would have literally neutralized that threat and made sure I wasn't going to get shot while I walked away. Skidmore was also not in an area conducive to retreat. Again, I suspect that since Skidmore was a former officer himself, he already new the law. I happen to think that is why he initially paused a second or two, so he could confirm the legal precedent had been met for him to defend himself.

I think the DA may drop the charges after this video is reviewed. And I also think the city or county opened themselves up to a serious lawsuit. Judging by opinions here, the jury would be pretty much in agreement.



edit on 12/7/15 by spirit_horse because: typos



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

So, if they interpret your actions as "argumentative and disruptive" then it give them carte-blanche to approach you without identifying themselves, attempt to steal your possessions, and overall escalate a situation into a life and death situation.

Nice interpretation of the law you have there.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc


There is nothing in the constitution that gives someone carte blanche to disrupt a public meeting whenever they damned well please.

I missed the part where anyone asked him to leave.
I did see the part where he was specifically invited to look at something.


Did you see the part in the video where he had been disruptive before? Did you see the part where he touched the lady's breast? Perhaps, just perhaps, after multiple issues with this guy, everyone has already gone with the polite route and perhaps, just perhaps, everyone was tired with his shenanigans. There are two sides of every story and just because people do not like politicians or cops does not automatically make it true that everyone who claims abuse by them is completely innocent.

If he has a history of being disruptive..... why did they let him in?
They left the door open to him.
So now we have to deal with this incident and not ones that we have no video of and apparently weren't enough to bar him from being at this meeting.

If he did touch this woman's breast... and did it intentionally, why not call law enforcement and have him arrested?

That isn't what happened here.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: NavyDoc

So, if they interpret your actions as "argumentative and disruptive" then it give them carte-blanche to approach you without identifying themselves, attempt to steal your possessions, and overall escalate a situation into a life and death situation.

Nice interpretation of the law you have there.


Actually, I've said several times that I thought the security guards actions were not justified, so I don't see where you get that.

What I am doing is pointing out that Skidmore was also acting badly--and has a history of doing such.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc


There is nothing in the constitution that gives someone carte blanche to disrupt a public meeting whenever they damned well please.

I missed the part where anyone asked him to leave.
I did see the part where he was specifically invited to look at something.


Did you see the part in the video where he had been disruptive before? Did you see the part where he touched the lady's breast? Perhaps, just perhaps, after multiple issues with this guy, everyone has already gone with the polite route and perhaps, just perhaps, everyone was tired with his shenanigans. There are two sides of every story and just because people do not like politicians or cops does not automatically make it true that everyone who claims abuse by them is completely innocent.

If he has a history of being disruptive..... why did they let him in?
They left the door open to him.
So now we have to deal with this incident and not ones that we have no video of and apparently weren't enough to bar him from being at this meeting.

If he did touch this woman's breast... and did it intentionally, why not call law enforcement and have him arrested?

That isn't what happened here.


I don't know why they let him in. In the beginning of the video they said that they were only going to be there to "observe and record." Their own video stated that there was a history there. Perhaps they had to let in people who were just going to be observers regardless of history.

When someone touches your employee's breast, you do call the cops AND your onsite security. The lady ran out of the room to get the onsite security--which is what they are supposed to do in a problematic situation. That's the whole point of having onsite security.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Which is totally irrelevant to the current situation....legally. Whether he was an ass before is irrelevant to his current actions, if he was not convicted of a crime. If that was the case, then the former actions of everyone depends upon someones future interpretations of those actions.

Again, nice interpretation of how the law works. Too bad it is fantasy and based upon Hollywood movies.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


The lady ran out of the room to get the onsite security--which is what they are supposed to do in a problematic situation. That's the whole point of having onsite security.
This brings us to the the point where you have admitted that things were not handled properly.
If the man needed to be arrested, they should have informed him of that and handcuffed him....
Instead of storming in and assaulting him without a word about what they were doing.

And they will get away with what they did.

Yay.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc


The lady ran out of the room to get the onsite security--which is what they are supposed to do in a problematic situation. That's the whole point of having onsite security.
This brings us to the the point where you have admitted that things were not handled properly.
If the man needed to be arrested, they should have informed him of that and handcuffed him....
Instead of storming in and assaulting him without a word about what they were doing.

And they will get away with what they did.

Yay.
Well, I think they wanted to remove him from the room first. Absent the punches it is possible he would have just been escorted out. You are correct, the guard should have said "let's step outside and talk about this," or something to that effect. Skidmore would still have refused, most likely, but that would have put the guard in a better position.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: NavyDoc

Which is totally irrelevant to the current situation....legally. Whether he was an ass before is irrelevant to his current actions, if he was not convicted of a crime. If that was the case, then the former actions of everyone depends upon someones future interpretations of those actions.

Again, nice interpretation of how the law works. Too bad it is fantasy and based upon Hollywood movies.


Legally? Perhaps not. The trial will bring that out, I assume.

However, it certainly explains the lack of patience we saw in the video if they had been through this before--multiple times.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: NavyDoc

Which is totally irrelevant to the current situation....legally. Whether he was an ass before is irrelevant to his current actions, if he was not convicted of a crime. If that was the case, then the former actions of everyone depends upon someones future interpretations of those actions.

Again, nice interpretation of how the law works. Too bad it is fantasy and based upon Hollywood movies.


Your last bit dos not even make sense.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I didn't see him touch her boob (as I have seen mentioned here numerous times!). Say it enough though and people accept it as truth. I did see her slightly recoil, but that certainly does not mean that he touched her boob. Maybe, because she is a bit large, maybe part of him touched side boob-which doesn't really belong there and not his fault. More than likely she felt her personal space was invaded...but she did say "I can't stop you from looking", and that is what he was doing.

I'm female and even I could see that the woman in the black dress was all righteous indignation when she went for "help".

The guy shouldn't have pummeled the guard quite so much, but I understand his need to fight for his rights, or what he perceived his rights to be. The guard. Not so much. I saw the look in the guards eyes when he reached for the camera. No doubt in my mind that as going to escalate and it's good that the guy held fast to his camera in the moment.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc


The lady ran out of the room to get the onsite security--which is what they are supposed to do in a problematic situation. That's the whole point of having onsite security.
This brings us to the the point where you have admitted that things were not handled properly.
If the man needed to be arrested, they should have informed him of that and handcuffed him....
Instead of storming in and assaulting him without a word about what they were doing.

And they will get away with what they did.

Yay.
Well, I think they wanted to remove him from the room first. Absent the punches it is possible he would have just been escorted out. You are correct, the guard should have said "let's step outside and talk about this," or something to that effect. Skidmore would still have refused, most likely, but that would have put the guard in a better position.


I don't believe any of us have stepped into the realm of speculation as of yet. The guard was out of line first, in the legal sense, whereas Skidmore may have been disruptive, they were clearly engaging his argument regardless. There was no call for "Sir, I will have to ask you to please stop disrupting this meeting" at all before the guards showed up and one proceeded to grab his personal property without any warning - in fact, one of the council members was addressing Skidmore when the guard made his decision.
edit on 12-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: deleted a sentence, I don't want to make a liar out of myself



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: NavyDoc


The lady ran out of the room to get the onsite security--which is what they are supposed to do in a problematic situation. That's the whole point of having onsite security.
This brings us to the the point where you have admitted that things were not handled properly.
If the man needed to be arrested, they should have informed him of that and handcuffed him....
Instead of storming in and assaulting him without a word about what they were doing.

And they will get away with what they did.

Yay.
Well, I think they wanted to remove him from the room first. Absent the punches it is possible he would have just been escorted out. You are correct, the guard should have said "let's step outside and talk about this," or something to that effect. Skidmore would still have refused, most likely, but that would have put the guard in a better position.


I don't believe any of us have stepped into the realm of speculation as of yet. The guard was out of line first, in the legal sense, whereas Skidmore may have been disruptive, they were clearly engaging his argument regardless. There was no call for "Sir, I will have to ask you to please stop disrupting this meeting" at all before the guards showed up and one proceeded to grab his personal property without any warning - in fact, one of the council members was addressing Skidmore when the guard made his decision.


You honestly think a member of "cop block" who has been arguing and demanding of the representatives around the table is suddenly going to shut up and go along meekly when asked to do so? Honestly?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   


You honestly think a member of "cop block" who has been arguing and demanding of the representatives around the table is suddenly going to shut up and go along meekly when asked to do so? Honestly?


They ask first and if he doesn't leave then haul him out. Seems the new standard in society is to skip over a person's rights and go right to he's a criminal requiring use of violent force.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



You honestly think a member of "cop block" who has been arguing and demanding of the representatives around the table is suddenly going to shut up and go along meekly when asked to do so? Honestly?


They ask first and if he doesn't leave then haul him out..


I agree.

However, one can also see a pattern on bad behavior here on his part as well.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: roadgravel



You honestly think a member of "cop block" who has been arguing and demanding of the representatives around the table is suddenly going to shut up and go along meekly when asked to do so? Honestly?


They ask first and if he doesn't leave then haul him out..


I agree.

However, one can also see a pattern on bad behavior here on his part as well.


I won't disagree with that statement. But that's one of the sides of freedom of speech.

Manners while speaking goes a long way at times but that also doesn't mean some won't see manners as a weakness and ignore the person.
edit on 7/12/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Yosemite Sam bubba John Wayne MMA USA culture is entertaining.

I like to save the rage for special occasion like martial law.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
From my experience working in security both of the security officers should lose their jobs.

The first security officer did not identify himself or ask the man to leave, but went straight ahead and assaulted him.

The second security put everyone's life at risk by discharging his firearm for no reason at all.

If i had done either of these acts i would expect to lose my job and my security license.

The man with the camera acted in self defense, However i did think he went over the top in his self defense.


edit on 12-7-2015 by bhaal because: spelling



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't know the guy and neither do you. If he didn't go peacefully, then, as you said, it would have given the guard a better case. Just because someone has a history of a behavior - which obviously if he has any history it is not criminal - it does not mean that breaching their own protocols of behavior is excusable.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join