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

a reply to: FlyingFox

As per his demeanor in this video, he was not out of line at all. He was calm, obviously agitated but quite calm despite his being singled out. Some people might call it attention-whoring, some might call it disruptive, but in all reality I did not see any of this. He was there and demanded to have his point heard and, in my mind, had his camera with him to prove that the public officials were the ones with the attitude problem.

It seems like his main point throughout the video was that public officials were not identifying themselves properly. This is a serious issue when dealing with people who are part of an elected group and their hired bureaucrats. Public officials are just that: Public. Their staff is therefore public. Their security is therefore public. I can't fathom as to how anonymity reigns in a democratic and public atmosphere. It's mind blowing.

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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???

This is what I'm talking about, a twist on

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.

argumentum ad ignorantiam.



You may need to look up what that means again. There is no ignorance. It was plain in the video if you listened to him. He was not there to "observe and record" as they claimed in the beginning of the video. They did not want to talk about what he wanted to talk about and so he insisted that they talk about his agenda. It was pretty obvious from watching the video he was being disruptive and argumentative.

originally posted by: Mugly
i love how one of them says call 911 and then like 3 seconds later all those thick ass corn fed mansfeld boys rush in. then they start calling the camera guy an animal and youre gonna spend the rest of your life in jail now mother #er

wow

I agree. If we do not get the word out and show this vid, the old boy may very well spend the rest of his days in prison. He may have put his hand on that lady's shoulder but nothing he did warranted the attack he received. Yeah, he did go straight to fist city, but I get the feeling those two had met before.

Common sense.
Two wrongs do t make any rights.

The guy seemed confrontational. Guard fast to shoot is pathetic too. If I was in that situation and had a gun would I feel I had to use it? I don't know. But it all can be avoided. And there is always a better way. In 40 years what will people be watching on tv as barbaric as we watch nazis now?

a reply to: FlyingFox

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

There is a lot of history to this situation that culminated in the video. None of us, save for those from this locale, can really say what led up to it. As per the video, however, the security was in the wrong.

a reply to: Johnathanandheather

I cannot, for the life of me, see the necessity for a gun in this situation. And what is this about Nazis? Let's not Godwin this thread after so much discussion has taken place.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: FlyingFox

As per his demeanor in this video, he was not out of line at all. He was calm, obviously agitated but quite calm despite his being singled out. Some people might call it attention-whoring, some might call it disruptive, but in all reality I did not see any of this. He was there and demanded to have his point heard and, in my mind, had his camera with him to prove that the public officials were the ones with the attitude problem.

It seems like his main point throughout the video was that public officials were not identifying themselves properly. This is a serious issue when dealing with people who are part of an elected group and their hired bureaucrats. Public officials are just that: Public. Their staff is therefore public. Their security is therefore public. I can't fathom as to how anonymity reigns in a democratic and public atmosphere. It's mind blowing.

But he wasn't singled out. He stepped in there. Everyone else sitting on the sides answered and asked questions in a give-and take. He was the one who started talking over everyone about how they were going to discuss his agenda, not the one they were actually discussing at the time.

originally posted by: RickyD
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!

Thats what im sayin, he looks too old. No matter what his combat history is, sometimes an old guy with a gun aint the best choice for a security position. Heck give him a flashlight or a slow trickle charged taser

originally posted by: H34T533K3R

originally posted by: RickyD
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!

Thats what im sayin, he looks too old. No matter what his combat history is, sometimes an old guy with a gun aint the best choice for a security position. Heck give him a flashlight or a slow trickle charged taser

Actually, the cop blocker website said he was an honorably discharged Marine with a tour in Okinawa and a 30 year corrections officer. He was not a Marine for 30 years--it sounds like a single enlistment over 30 years ago and several decades as a corrections officer.

From the link in the OP:

Skidmore, a former U.S. Marine who spent 30 years as a prison guard before retiring, is currently sitting in jail on a $100,000 bond on a charge of felonious assault on the security guards

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

You can surely hate on the SO for firing the gun - that was uncalled for and should be looked into.

The man disrupting a meeting, putting hands on officials (which is assault in most jurisdictions), being warned and remaining indignant and confrontational, then the sudden and vicious attack by punching someone in the head is completely out of line and I assume he will be rightfully charged and imprisoned.

While the SO (security officers, I'm assuming) are obviously inept and should have asked for compliance first, it is still well within their jurisdiction to remove equipment and individuals. It' their whole purpose - to detain and enforce. He escalated it by physically assaulting an individual. In short, even if they were ham-fisted and rude, they were lawful up until the gunshot. When he flew into an assault, he put himself up for a felony.

I can not see why anyone would sympathize with this fellow other than to hate politicians and the obviously amateur security officers.

a reply to: NavyDoc

At the beginning of the meeting in this video, the dark haired lady in white directly asks the group of people, which Skidmore may be a part of (I am not sure) what their particular questions are. There is a response from the cool as a cucumber man in white, who says something to the effect of "I have lots of questions" to which Skidmore adds "I have questions too". From there, Skidmore begins talking about a meeting agenda, which is literally an official document which outlines the points of a particular meeting. To this, Skidmore says (talking over the guy in white) that the agenda they received and the agenda that is currently being followed has been changed illegally. I do not know how formal public meeting agendas are considered, so I cannot say whether or not he is correct in this statement.

Regardless, it is quite clear that the dark haired lady opens the forum to Skidmore and company. He had the floor, so to speak, and I don't really see how he was disrupting the meeting if an official opened it to him.

originally posted by: Ferros
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

You can surely hate on the SO for firing the gun - that was uncalled for and should be looked into.

The man disrupting a meeting, putting hands on officials (which is assault in most jurisdictions), being warned and remaining indignant and confrontational, then the sudden and vicious attack by punching someone in the head is completely out of line and I assume he will be rightfully charged and imprisoned.

While the SO (security officers, I'm assuming) are obviously inept and should have asked for compliance first, it is still well within their jurisdiction to remove equipment and individuals. It' their whole purpose - to detain and enforce. He escalated it by physically assaulting an individual. In short, even if they were ham-fisted and rude, they were lawful up until the gunshot. When he flew into an assault, he put himself up for a felony.

I can not see why anyone would sympathize with this fellow other than to hate politicians and the obviously amateur security officers.

Quite honestly from a pure analytical lawful viewpoint, your argument is nonsense. Regardless of what happened with the contact between the subject and staff member, he was showing no aggression and when the security guard approached him, he did not cite an arrest, citizen or otherwise, he simply assaulted his person without any merit to do so.

In response of such an assault, a person is well within their rights to resist, even violently which is what happened and I am confident any court of jurors will find this completely just. I also suspect that the township / community in question will end up paying MILLIONS of dollars for this while nobody is punished.

If the system worked correctly, he would not only be paid millions but at least two of those criminals involved in false imprisonment, assault, attempted murder, malicious prosecution and kidnapping would be spending the rest of their lives in jail.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Pretty sure most ccw's/cops would pull their weapon when being attacked like the guard was, pretty sure that is the point to carrying it.

If he pulls it in the middle of strongarm theft, he's committed a felony.

I doubt there are many states where a person can start an altercation then claim self defense and use a fire arm.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Good catch...my mistake... Must have read too fast.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I doubt there are many states where a person can start an altercation then claim self defense and use a fire arm.

...and miss at point blank range, then try to claim you are a LEO because you still hold a cert after having been let go from the Sheriff's Office.

The "guards" did not witness any "touching" (assault), and there was clearly no emanate threat to anyone, therefore they cannot take physical action, which would only be to protect another person from immediate threat/harm....same as ANY OTHER citizen who could defend another.

The only emanate threat was from the gun-wielding madman.

He was winning Right up to the point where he attacked the guards. Right in the middle of talking about them laying on hands they do it. He could have just said see, now I'm suing your for doing it again.

As was he lost it and played right into their hands.

a reply to: roadgravel

Oh yeah, I totally agree!

a reply to: FlyingFox

Bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Holy cow. Shut up and shoot this guy already.