The guy in the yellow shirt ducked under the table pretty quick! It's crazy how quick things happen sometimes.
Wow.
As usual, so much fail all around.
The best action here would have been to call a recess to the meeting, and then have security detain this clearly unstable man as the room cleared. Since he was farthest from the door and in a good seat he wanted to be able to film, they could have removed bystanders before escalating the encounter.
True! Do you feel he should have fired in that situation?
That wasn't a place to use a firearm on an unarmed person especially with two security guards, they could have held the dude and cuffed him. Too easy for innocent people to have gotten shot...
But I will say that the Governments no longer work for the people but for themselves bleeding the very communities they are supposed to serve!
Let's say the shot killed this looney... what would the verdict have been in Court?
Probably excessive force by the guard and assault and battery by the old dude!
The violent attack and failure to obey commands, as much as it pains me to say, probably put the SO in the position of a "clean" shoot. That said, this never should have escalated.
This is too often the case in the use of deadly force. It becomes a clean shoot because lack of "verbal judo" skills escalates a situation that never should have escalated. In this case they are dealing with a man that is agitated with local government, and has in the past been VERY agitated by security "putting hands" on him.
So the idiot walks into a crowded room, and does the very thing that riles this guy up.
I know the heading at the end says it was intentional, but I am not convinced.
The security guard had no reason pulling his gun in that situation though.
Quote from: 4949shooter on September 26 2015 09:17:13 PM MDT
I know the heading at the end says it was intentional, but I am not convinced.
The security guard had no reason pulling his gun in that situation though.
My thoughts, the same. Old dude armed with a camera. Not a shoot situation. Intent was determined at the draw, so intent isn't an issue. In any case, a bad situation, all around. Lose-lose.
I think it's a good shoot, but a bad shot. You can't miss at that distance. But if you're getting punched repeatedly in the head, grabbed, etc. and you feel you are not going to be able to stop the attack, by all means do what you have to do. The guy is a whimp for getting his ass kicked by an elderly skinny guy, but who knows this guys background? I read somewhere that he was a former Marine? If that's true he could kill someone easy even at his age. He sure looked like he knew how to fight.
IMO, uncalled for....
A perfect situ where you could have had people exit the room and then talked this guy down ( while more help comes ).
Also if you got a gun in security, why not expanding baton or pepper spray . (I've taken down guys 3x larger than him with the pepper( it's nasty ))... was always taught the pain given out goes in escalated steps as needed , don't just jump to the top.
The problem is the person hiring the security guards. The guards are not receiving the ryt kind of training.
Quote from: macc283 on September 27 2015 11:58:56 AM MDT
The problem is the person hiring the security guards. The guards are not receiving the ryt kind of training.
That's correct, and the reason why the guard did nothing wrong here. They receive little to no training in hand to hand techniques. Most companies give little training in verbal techniques. The guard did what most people would have done under similar conditions if they were carrying a firearm. He was getting punched in the head repeatedly, backed against a wall. Under those same circumstances I might have used my gun as well. We can't hold a security guard to the same standards as police.
Let me put it this way. I received more training in a 9 week military police academy than I have in 10 years working in the private security industry. My 9 weeks of military police training has elevated me above the people I work with at every company that I've ever worked for, and I've always been put into management positions. The average security officer is just a regular Joe that is basically a bouncer with a uniform or observe and report.
The problem I see here is, are the "guards" only private security? Or are they sworn peace officers? If only private security, they have no more lawful authority than the citizen, other than possession of firearms on that public property. The "guard" escalated the level of force the moment he attempted to seize the camera, then assaulted the citizen (lawful or otherwise) by pulling on the lanyard around his neck. If the guard had no right to seize the camera (I doubt he did), then the assault resulted in a lawful like-response. The camera was not evidence to be seized (at that time), nor was it perceived as a weapon. The entire incident was managed very poorly by the security personnel, start to finish. The guard's (or a peace officer's, for that matter) level of training shall never determine the reasonableness of a response by a subject. The guard initiated the physical level of contact, and further escalated that level up to and including deadly force. This was a public meeting, in a public place. As far as I could see/hear in the video, Skidmore was not advised of any law violation that may allow the guards to detain him, or attempt to seize any of his property. Ultimately, this ended in a citizen's arrest and detention of a subject for, apparently, undisclosed probable cause. The guard that drew and fired his weapon may likely be facing ADW, and likely would have been charged with at least manslaughter if he had shot and killed him.
Where did the bullet go?
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 01:39:32 PM MDT
The problem I see here is, are the "guards" only private security? Or are they sworn peace officers? If only private security, they have no more lawful authority than the citizen, other than possession of firearms on that public property. The "guard" escalated the level of force the moment he attempted to seize the camera, then assaulted the citizen (lawful or otherwise) by pulling on the lanyard around his neck. If the guard had no right to seize the camera (I doubt he did), then the assault resulted in a lawful like-response. The camera was not evidence to be seized (at that time), nor was it perceived as a weapon. The entire incident was managed very poorly by the security personnel, start to finish. The guard's (or a peace officer's, for that matter) level of training shall never determine the reasonableness of a response by a subject. The guard initiated the physical level of contact, and further escalated that level up to and including deadly force. This was a public meeting, in a public place. As far as I could see/hear in the video, Skidmore was not advised of any law violation that may allow the guards to detain him, or attempt to seize any of his property. Ultimately, this ended in a citizen's arrest and detention of a subject for, apparently, undisclosed probable cause. The guard that drew and fired his weapon may likely be facing ADW, and likely would have been charged with at least manslaughter if he had shot and killed him.
Where did the bullet go?
I believe you missed one important piece of information. The guy touched the woman. After he touched her, that other woman walked out and grabbed security to have him removed. The security guard came in with the intent to remove the guy. The camera, although not a "weapon" can become a weapon and would be the first thing taken away. The security guard was doing his job. Removing a threat. Bouncers do it all the time. There is no law that says they can't touch people. Although I think the public is under that assumption. I get it all the time when I stop a shoplifter. "You can't touch me, I know the law." Then when they try to walk away with the stolen merchandise they get put into handcuffs using whatever force necessary.
Quote from: Patriot on September 27 2015 01:48:58 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 01:39:32 PM MDT
The problem I see here is, are the "guards" only private security? Or are they sworn peace officers? If only private security, they have no more lawful authority than the citizen, other than possession of firearms on that public property. The "guard" escalated the level of force the moment he attempted to seize the camera, then assaulted the citizen (lawful or otherwise) by pulling on the lanyard around his neck. If the guard had no right to seize the camera (I doubt he did), then the assault resulted in a lawful like-response. The camera was not evidence to be seized (at that time), nor was it perceived as a weapon. The entire incident was managed very poorly by the security personnel, start to finish. The guard's (or a peace officer's, for that matter) level of training shall never determine the reasonableness of a response by a subject. The guard initiated the physical level of contact, and further escalated that level up to and including deadly force. This was a public meeting, in a public place. As far as I could see/hear in the video, Skidmore was not advised of any law violation that may allow the guards to detain him, or attempt to seize any of his property. Ultimately, this ended in a citizen's arrest and detention of a subject for, apparently, undisclosed probable cause. The guard that drew and fired his weapon may likely be facing ADW, and likely would have been charged with at least manslaughter if he had shot and killed him.
Where did the bullet go?
I believe you missed one important piece of information. The guy touched the woman. After he touched her, that other woman walked out and grabbed security to have him removed. The security guard came in with the intent to remove the guy. The camera, although not a "weapon" can become a weapon and would be the first thing taken away. The security guard was doing his job. Removing a threat. Bouncers do it all the time. There is no law that says they can't touch people. Although I think the public is under that assumption. I get it all the time when I stop a shoplifter. "You can't touch me, I know the law." Then when they try to walk away with the stolen merchandise they get put into handcuffs using whatever force necessary.
I didn't miss it. "Touching" another person isn't a crime in itself, and she and the others merely only said it was "inappropriate". No mention of an assault or battery, of any sort. The actual "touching" isn't shown in the vid that I could see, so I don't know if it would actually rise to the level of criminal. The woman didn't seem too concerned or threatened at the time. Merely placing a hand on the shoulder of a person isn't a crime if there is no criminal intent or attempt to detain, and is often perceived as a friendly gesture, welcomed or not. Or, it was incidental. We don't know. You, as a private security person, know your only authority to detain anyone is for the purpose of a citizen's arrest. The guards in the vid had no authority, with what I saw, to detain Skidmore. They could have asked him to leave, or called the PD/SO to have him arrested. Had the "touched" woman stated she wished to have him (citizen) arrested, they certainly could have detained him by whatever reasonable means necessary. As far as the camera being a "possible" weapon goes, that doesn't hold water. It was secured around his neck, and the room was full of equally "potential" weapons, much more dangerous than that little GoPro, or whatever it was. Skidmore never displayed his camera in a threatening manner, therefore it should not have been considered a weapon, potential or otherwise. The guard grabbed the camera to demonstrate dominance over Skidmore, and nothing more up to that point. It's apparent the guard and Skidmore have a history, but that history has no bearing on that specific incident, and gave the guard no right to seize the non-threatening private property of a citizen on public property. As the guard approached, he only made familiar conversation with Skidmore. No requests or demands were made in regards to his "unlawful" presence, that I saw.
Don't get me wrong, here. I think Skidmore is a real piece of work, but justice is never poetic. Just trying to remain objective. Realistically, the private security guard's attempt to seize Skidmore's camera was robbery, by strict definition. The guard grabbed the camera, continued to pull at it while it was secured with a lanyard around Skidmore's neck. This was clearly an attempt to take and deprive a person of his known or believed personal property, as well as an assault committed upon Skidmore in the attempt. If the attempted taking of the camera is proved to have been lawful, then none of this matters, and Skidmore goes to jail for assaulting the guard. You, as a citizen, have the absolute right to defend yourself against an unlawful detention or unlawful seizure of personal property, by the same (reasonable) means allowed by law for a lawful detention or lawful seizure of property. You are not required by any law to submit to any unlawful act.
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 03:40:39 PM MDT
Quote from: Patriot on September 27 2015 01:48:58 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 01:39:32 PM MDT
The problem I see here is, are the "guards" only private security? Or are they sworn peace officers? If only private security, they have no more lawful authority than the citizen, other than possession of firearms on that public property. The "guard" escalated the level of force the moment he attempted to seize the camera, then assaulted the citizen (lawful or otherwise) by pulling on the lanyard around his neck. If the guard had no right to seize the camera (I doubt he did), then the assault resulted in a lawful like-response. The camera was not evidence to be seized (at that time), nor was it perceived as a weapon. The entire incident was managed very poorly by the security personnel, start to finish. The guard's (or a peace officer's, for that matter) level of training shall never determine the reasonableness of a response by a subject. The guard initiated the physical level of contact, and further escalated that level up to and including deadly force. This was a public meeting, in a public place. As far as I could see/hear in the video, Skidmore was not advised of any law violation that may allow the guards to detain him, or attempt to seize any of his property. Ultimately, this ended in a citizen's arrest and detention of a subject for, apparently, undisclosed probable cause. The guard that drew and fired his weapon may likely be facing ADW, and likely would have been charged with at least manslaughter if he had shot and killed him.
Where did the bullet go?
I believe you missed one important piece of information. The guy touched the woman. After he touched her, that other woman walked out and grabbed security to have him removed. The security guard came in with the intent to remove the guy. The camera, although not a "weapon" can become a weapon and would be the first thing taken away. The security guard was doing his job. Removing a threat. Bouncers do it all the time. There is no law that says they can't touch people. Although I think the public is under that assumption. I get it all the time when I stop a shoplifter. "You can't touch me, I know the law." Then when they try to walk away with the stolen merchandise they get put into handcuffs using whatever force necessary.
I didn't miss it. "Touching" another person isn't a crime in itself, and she and the others merely only said it was "inappropriate". No mention of an assault or battery, of any sort. The actual "touching" isn't shown in the vid that I could see, so I don't know if it would actually rise to the level of criminal. The woman didn't seem too concerned or threatened at the time. Merely placing a hand on the shoulder of a person isn't a crime if there is no criminal intent or attempt to detain, and is often perceived as a friendly gesture, welcomed or not. Or, it was incidental. We don't know. You, as a private security person, know your only authority to detain anyone is for the purpose of a citizen's arrest. The guards in the vid had no authority, with what I saw, to detain Skidmore. They could have asked him to leave, or called the PD/SO to have him arrested. Had the "touched" woman stated she wished to have him (citizen) arrested, they certainly could have detained him by whatever reasonable means necessary. As far as the camera being a "possible" weapon goes, that doesn't hold water. It was secured around his neck, and the room was full of equally "potential" weapons, much more dangerous than that little GoPro, or whatever it was. Skidmore never displayed his camera in a threatening manner, therefore it should not have been considered a weapon, potential or otherwise. The guard grabbed the camera to demonstrate dominance over Skidmore, and nothing more up to that point. It's apparent the guard and Skidmore have a history, but that history has no bearing on that specific incident, and gave the guard no right to seize the non-threatening private property of a citizen on public property. As the guard approached, he only made familiar conversation with Skidmore. No requests or demands were made in regards to his "unlawful" presence, that I saw.
Don't get me wrong, here. I think Skidmore is a real piece of work, but justice is never poetic. Just trying to remain objective. Realistically, the private security guard's attempt to seize Skidmore's camera was robbery, by strict definition. The guard grabbed the camera, continued to pull at it while it was secured with a lanyard around Skidmore's neck. This was clearly an attempt to take and deprive a person of his known or believed personal property, as well as an assault committed upon Skidmore in the attempt. If the attempted taking of the camera is proved to have been lawful, then none of this matters, and Skidmore goes to jail for assaulting the guard. You, as a citizen, have the absolute right to defend yourself against an unlawful detention or unlawful seizure of personal property, by the same (reasonable) means allowed by law for a lawful detention or lawful seizure of property. You are not required by any law to submit to any unlawful act.
Although I agree with some of what you said, a citizens arrest, in most jurisdictions that I've ever worked is for felony level crimes that a citizen DIRECTLY observes. In most incidents, a security guards authority comes from the owner of a property, acting as his/her agent. On private property, an owner has the right to detain someone for any crime, misdemeanor or felony. The laws are usually written like "a property owner or an agent of the property owner may detain an individual for theft, assault, property destruction etc." Just like at your house, you can detain a trespasser, or a thief, or any of your agents could as well (friend, family member, hired help). A hired security guard can use physical force on private property to remove or detain someone for any suspected crime (such as a club bouncer). They are not using the power of citizens arrest, they are using the power of the owner of the property. If the security guard decided the guy had to leave the property, and the owner/property manager has granted him that authority, the security guard doesn't even need to ask the guy to leave. Just like at your own private property, the guard can just drag him out.
It's very apparent that this is not private meeting taking place on property. It is some sort of Public official meeting. Several references are made conserning public announcements, agendas, access to elected officials, etc....
Skidmore was complaining about the staff going hands on just before the two security men entered the room and did exactly that! No pretext, no request for compliance, no verbal interaction at all. John Wayne simply walks over and goes hands on.
Very clearly a different situation in my view from detaining a shoplifting suspect or throwing an inebriated, disorderly drunk out of a bar.
I very respectfully disagree with the notion that a proprietor, agent thereof or owner of private property can simply snatch somebody up (physically) and throw them out for any reason they wish. Good way to be prosecuted for assault and/or sued in civil court.
Shouldn't have gone down this way; they're lucky as hell they didn't kill him. Looks like to me Skidmore (who indeed seemed a bit of loon and cuckoo to me) is gonna end up walking away with some money....
I never said they could touch him for any reason they wish. I said any perceived crime. I think it comes down to what the guy was told to do. The woman walked out of the room (obviously to report to security that a man had touched a council member) and came back with security. If she was any kind of person in charge, and told him to remove the guy, then he's clear.
Quote from: Patriot on September 27 2015 04:13:50 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 03:40:39 PM MDT
Quote from: Patriot on September 27 2015 01:48:58 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 01:39:32 PM MDT
The problem I see here is, are the "guards" only private security? Or are they sworn peace officers? If only private security, they have no more lawful authority than the citizen, other than possession of firearms on that public property. The "guard" escalated the level of force the moment he attempted to seize the camera, then assaulted the citizen (lawful or otherwise) by pulling on the lanyard around his neck. If the guard had no right to seize the camera (I doubt he did), then the assault resulted in a lawful like-response. The camera was not evidence to be seized (at that time), nor was it perceived as a weapon. The entire incident was managed very poorly by the security personnel, start to finish. The guard's (or a peace officer's, for that matter) level of training shall never determine the reasonableness of a response by a subject. The guard initiated the physical level of contact, and further escalated that level up to and including deadly force. This was a public meeting, in a public place. As far as I could see/hear in the video, Skidmore was not advised of any law violation that may allow the guards to detain him, or attempt to seize any of his property. Ultimately, this ended in a citizen's arrest and detention of a subject for, apparently, undisclosed probable cause. The guard that drew and fired his weapon may likely be facing ADW, and likely would have been charged with at least manslaughter if he had shot and killed him.
Where did the bullet go?
I believe you missed one important piece of information. The guy touched the woman. After he touched her, that other woman walked out and grabbed security to have him removed. The security guard came in with the intent to remove the guy. The camera, although not a "weapon" can become a weapon and would be the first thing taken away. The security guard was doing his job. Removing a threat. Bouncers do it all the time. There is no law that says they can't touch people. Although I think the public is under that assumption. I get it all the time when I stop a shoplifter. "You can't touch me, I know the law." Then when they try to walk away with the stolen merchandise they get put into handcuffs using whatever force necessary.
I didn't miss it. "Touching" another person isn't a crime in itself, and she and the others merely only said it was "inappropriate". No mention of an assault or battery, of any sort. The actual "touching" isn't shown in the vid that I could see, so I don't know if it would actually rise to the level of criminal. The woman didn't seem too concerned or threatened at the time. Merely placing a hand on the shoulder of a person isn't a crime if there is no criminal intent or attempt to detain, and is often perceived as a friendly gesture, welcomed or not. Or, it was incidental. We don't know. You, as a private security person, know your only authority to detain anyone is for the purpose of a citizen's arrest. The guards in the vid had no authority, with what I saw, to detain Skidmore. They could have asked him to leave, or called the PD/SO to have him arrested. Had the "touched" woman stated she wished to have him (citizen) arrested, they certainly could have detained him by whatever reasonable means necessary. As far as the camera being a "possible" weapon goes, that doesn't hold water. It was secured around his neck, and the room was full of equally "potential" weapons, much more dangerous than that little GoPro, or whatever it was. Skidmore never displayed his camera in a threatening manner, therefore it should not have been considered a weapon, potential or otherwise. The guard grabbed the camera to demonstrate dominance over Skidmore, and nothing more up to that point. It's apparent the guard and Skidmore have a history, but that history has no bearing on that specific incident, and gave the guard no right to seize the non-threatening private property of a citizen on public property. As the guard approached, he only made familiar conversation with Skidmore. No requests or demands were made in regards to his "unlawful" presence, that I saw.
Don't get me wrong, here. I think Skidmore is a real piece of work, but justice is never poetic. Just trying to remain objective. Realistically, the private security guard's attempt to seize Skidmore's camera was robbery, by strict definition. The guard grabbed the camera, continued to pull at it while it was secured with a lanyard around Skidmore's neck. This was clearly an attempt to take and deprive a person of his known or believed personal property, as well as an assault committed upon Skidmore in the attempt. If the attempted taking of the camera is proved to have been lawful, then none of this matters, and Skidmore goes to jail for assaulting the guard. You, as a citizen, have the absolute right to defend yourself against an unlawful detention or unlawful seizure of personal property, by the same (reasonable) means allowed by law for a lawful detention or lawful seizure of property. You are not required by any law to submit to any unlawful act.
Although I agree with some of what you said, a citizens arrest, in most jurisdictions that I've ever worked is for felony level crimes that a citizen DIRECTLY observes. In most incidents, a security guards authority comes from the owner of a property, acting as his/her agent. On private property, an owner has the right to detain someone for any crime, misdemeanor or felony. The laws are usually written like "a property owner or an agent of the property owner may detain an individual for theft, assault, property destruction etc." Just like at your house, you can detain a trespasser, or a thief, or any of your agents could as well (friend, family member, hired help). A hired security guard can use physical force on private property to remove or detain someone for any suspected crime (such as a club bouncer). They are not using the power of citizens arrest, they are using the power of the owner of the property.
Well, not exactly. The agent of a land/property owner can act on behalf of the owner. Paid security or anyone granted that authority is the same. If someone were detained, the only authority to do so is on behalf of property owner's authority of citizen's arrest. You cannot lawfully detain anyone for not committing a crime, misdemeanor, felony or otherwise. If it is a felony that is committed, a citizen's arrest is not required (or allowed in any state I'm aware of), because any sworn peace officer can make that arrest if probable cause exists, when it was not committed in the officer's presence.
Correct about the direct observation. While a sworn peace officer may make an arrest for crimes not committed in his/her presence (most states require this to be a felony), a non-sworn person, or agent of that person, can only arrest if committed in his/her presence. There are a few exceptions (mostly regarding juveniles), but irrelevant to this discussion. I've processed dozens, if not hundreds, of citizen's arrests, most of them business owners, managers or security personnel (agents of the owners). If you, as store security, detain a shoplifter, what do you do with them? You call the po-po to arrest them and to submit the suspected crime to the D/A for prosecution. The store/property owner is the victim, who gave you that authority to act on his behalf. The property taken was not your property, but it was in your charge. If a store has a policy of not arresting shoplifters, then you have no authority to do so, regardless of what you witness. This is not to say a person cannot be detained until the property taken is returned (under threat of lawful arrest).
However, this isn't about private property or private property owners/agents. This occurred on public property, during a public meeting, by private security personnel, upon a person lawfully present. Therein lies the problem, and the fat gray area. They can detain someone for having committed a crime. I'm not questioning that. The problem is, that up to the moment the guard attempted to seize the camera, a crime was not complained by anyone. Behavior deemed "inappropriate" is certainly grounds to require someone to leave, but to detain? No. Had he been asked to leave, on lawful grounds, and refused, then he could be detained pending arrest for trespass, disturbing the peace, or whatever ordinance that may apply. In this case, if the woman wished to make a complaint of the touching, she should have said so. No other person in that room had any authority to make that complaint, merely because she was present. All she had to do was make that statement to the guards, who could have lawfully detained Skidmore at her request, pending law enforcement response. Ultimately, when the guards arrived, they had witnessed no crime, and we have no idea what the uninvolved person who summoned them, told them (which is irrelevant, since the "victim" was still present).
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/gun-fired-richland-courthouse/29906869/
Quote from: Patriot on September 27 2015 05:16:51 PM MDT
I never said they could touch him for any reason they wish. I said any perceived crime. I think it comes down to what the guy was told to do. The woman walked out of the room (obviously to report to security that a man had touched a council member) and came back with security. If she was any kind of person in charge, and told him to remove the guy, then he's clear.
Herein lies the major difference between an arrest made by a citizen vs. a sworn officer. The citizen has no immunity. An officer who makes an arrest only has to articulate the probable cause that led to that arrest, whether or not a crime was actually committed. A citizen can only make an arrest if a crime was, in fact, committed.
To assume the woman who fetched the security told them another woman was "touched", is a stretch. It's apparent nearly everyone was familiar with Skidmore, so it's equally as likely she just told them he was there, and "up to it again". The guard made no reference to any of Skidmore's behavior, nor made any lawful requests/demands prior to the engagement. Prior to the guards going hands-on, they would require the "victim" to request that.
This was an official meeting, in a public place, open to the public (there were other members of the public present). It is apparent the officials were conversing with Skidmore for quit a while before the engagement began. I don't recall anyone asking him to leave the meeting for inappropriate behavior, before or after the "touching" incident. They were actually quite casual with the whole thing.
If they showed up to remove him for being disruptive during a meeting, they simply did it wrong and own the result. Their lack of training or unprofessional response actions is not the responsibility of Skidmore, in any way.
Quote from: Intercooler on September 27 2015 05:50:50 PM MDT
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/09/gun-fired-richland-courthouse/29906869/
Pretty much sums up what I said. The security was summoned to remove him. That's all it takes. Once someone in charge says to kick him out, no questions asked. He fought back while they were legally tossing him. Big mistake. The guards won't be charged. He will be.
Not only that but though in this capacity they are security officers, both are certified LE officers. Doesn't say if they are CAT1 or CAT2, but they would enjoy some degree of police powers due to their certs and acting as agents of a municipality.
Stupid out of control "security guard" unnecessarily elevated the situation.
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 27 2015 06:47:53 PM MDT
Not only that but though in this capacity they are security officers, both are certified LE officers. Doesn't say if they are CAT1 or CAT2, but they would enjoy some degree of police powers due to their certs and acting as agents of a municipality.
"Certified" only attributes their previous training, as the security chief said. Once no longer sworn, the only things that remain official is LEOSA (H.R. 218, if it applies to the condition of separation), and
voir dire in court as a witness. "Former" or "Certified" says nothing to the reason for separation, their level of training, or actual on-duty experience. Many fired LEO's go into private security. These "officers" didn't appear too well experienced, IMO.
Nowhere in the video we watched was Skidmore asked to leave or legally advised he was being ejected before he was assaulted by the security guard.
Of course the security guards won't be charged. Small City in a little Midwestern County... No doubt they're positioning the loony old dude as the goat. Doesn't mean they'll ultimately be successful.
My $ says Skidmore skates on the serious charges and counters with a civil complaint.
Quote from: Rojo27 on September 27 2015 08:36:54 PM MDT
Nowhere in the video we watched was Skidmore asked to leave or legally advised he was being ejected before he was assaulted by the security guard.
Of course the security guards won't be charged. Small City in a little Midwestern County... No doubt they're positioning the loony old dude as the goat. Doesn't mean they'll ultimately be successful.
My $ says Skidmore skates on the serious charges and counters with a civil complaint.
I think he had been asked to leave before the video starts, according to accounts I've read. That was his whole problem. He was complaining and protesting about them going into closed session, and he believed the public should be allowed to be there during the entire meeting. There are other videos that the police and prosecutor got to see that we haven't. We only have the one video that starts with him complaining about the closed session.
Looking over video, the security personel seem up in age as well. Come's a time when one has to get away from that occupation. The guy with camera overtook fast. Courthouses, at least here in Penna, have uniformed sheriffs. No pepper spray, no tazer and no baton i could see.
The problem with carrying has always been the same. If you end up in a physical confrontation, you could die by use of your own firearm. I'm just glad I'm not police. I can get myself out of situations, while at the same time the cops get called to control the guy I just avoided.
Greg
There's training called Force Continuum. It's a elevation of use of force.
Yeah, the SO's here made lots of errors. I still stand on the idea that they chose the ground and situation for the engagement poorly. This guy was a known issue, having had previous altercations. Mentally unstable people tend to escalate without treatment, so they should have approached this expecting more of an outburst than previous encounters.
It would have been easy to call a recess for a bathroom break and clear the room safely, then deal with this guy alone.
Was that George Zimmerman? Go after someone, then when that person starts to whip your behind, pull a gun and shoot him.