Which one is guilty of assault?

[Devils Advocate]

[BmorePat87]

The weirdo with the camera is guilty of assault. Given the accusation of touching the staff member, they're within their rights to escort him away.

Maybe they should have asked him first, but he has no reason to just pummel the man. Fred can correct me if I'm wrong, but self defense also doesn't not entitle you to just keep attacking someone, as he clearly is doing.

That said, there was no reason to fire the gun

[Devils Advocate]

No. The security guard never identified himself. And he is not allowed to place his hands ( assault and battery) on the bald guy. He never says a word, much less asks him to leave.the security guard should be charged with attempted murder, endagnering and illegal discharge of a fire arm.

[BmorePat87]

Does the building security have to identify themselves when he refers to them as the security as soon as they walk in?

I doubt he'll be able to justify attacking this man who was just doing his job. He went beyond "self defense". A quick google only defines self defense in Ohio in the cases of defending yourself from death or great bodily harm in your residence, work, or vehicle.

All also mention the duty to retreat. He could have retreated after that first punch but then runs at the man and just starts pummeling him like a lunatic.

This isn't anywhere cloSe to self defense

[Johnny Cupcakes]

If someone attacks me like that, they should be prepared to be shot.  Not because I think that shooting him would be necessary, but I'm not going to take the chance.  Although I think that those two security guards could have ended the situation without the gun, they didn't know exactly how insane this insane dude is, or what level of force should be used to stop him.  The security guards were guilty of nothing, but they probably need more training with firearms if they're going to carry them.  That dude almost killed an innocent person with his shot.

It's easy to judge all of the actions by watching the video a couple of times, but all of that going down in real time is quite the different story.  I don't really know what I would do, but if I had a gun, I may have used it in this situation.

[Devils Advocate]

Lol. So you can tell from the angle we're givin that the security guard wasn't threatening again after the initial exchange?

[Devils Advocate]

The guard initiates the attack.

Isn't it ironic the complaint the citizen has deals with 'officers' identifying themselves ... or inappropriately placing their hands on someone?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-12-2015, 09:12 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Lol. So you can tell from the angle we're givin that the security guard wasn't threatening again after the initial exchange?

The security guard was never threatening in the first place.  The security guard acted in self defense, and this nut job was the aggressor, and yes, that is incredibly clear when watching this video.

[Goalpost]

The assault is from the guy who threw the 1st punch, and many more so it seemed.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2015, 08:50 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: No. The security guard never identified himself. 

What does the badge, open carry, and uniform say?

[Benton]

(07-12-2015, 08:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does the building security have to identify themselves  when he refers to them as the security as soon as they walk in?

I doubt he'll be able to justify attacking this man who was just doing his job. He went beyond "self defense". A quick google only defines self defense in Ohio in the cases of defending yourself from death or great bodily harm in your residence, work, or vehicle.

All also mention the duty to retreat. He could have retreated after that first punch but then runs at the man and just starts pummeling him like a lunatic.

This isn't anywhere cloSe to self defense

Legally, dunno.

But they should. Every time I've had an agency object to me recording, they've identified themselves and given the KRS (state law) or local ordinance. I've had people throw things, spit at and be rough with me, but never actually jerk a camera or recording device out of my hand. That said, I'm a pacifist and wouldn't respond in the same manner. But, the security guard has no right that I'm aware of to grab the recording device without first identifying himself and the statute of law for barring a recording device (which in any state it rare).

As far as touching the worker, ok. It would be hard pressed to call that assault, but an unwanted touch is an unwanted touch. Which still doesn't give a security guard the right to take a recording device off your person, only ask you to remain in place until law enforcement agency arrives.

[SunsetBengal]

Looks pretty obvious to me that the guy with the camera was looking to start some trouble.  Even after he is cautioned by the female at the table, for putting his hands on the staff member, he continues to speak in an obstinate manner.  Then, when approached by an obvious man of the law, he commences to throwing blows as the lawman attempts to arrest him.

Good thing there was a camera on the room, showing video of the entire event.  Likely saved Richmond Co. a lot of money in legal fees.

(just my opinion)

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 09:14 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The security guard was never threatening in the first place.  The security guard acted in self defense, and this nut job was the aggressor, and yes, that is incredibly clear when watching this video.

The guard accosted the bald guy by trying to remove steal his camera. Filming in a public place is perfectly legal. The bald guy has a right to his effects. The bald guy isn't required to take a few punches before he deems the situation a threat and defend himself and property. He didn't have a chance to duly retreat. The guard attempts to whip out his equalizer so the bald guy had no choice but to defend again. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 09:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Looks pretty obvious to me that the guy with the camera was looking to start some trouble.  Even after he is cautioned by the female at the table, for putting his hands on the staff member, he continues to speak in an obstinate manner.  Then, when approached by an obvious man of the law, he commences to throwing blows as the lawman attempts to arrest him.

Good thing there was a camera on the room, showing video of the entire event.  Likely saved Richmond Co. a lot of money in legal fees.

(just my opinion)

How so? Was the guy yelling? Posturing? Threatening? 

The bald guy is a former corrections officer by the way.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 09:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What does the badge, open carry, and uniform say?

What it implies is quite different than what it legally says. That's why police are required to carry ID cards and present them upon request. That's why most lawyers will instruct you, should you find yourself being pulled over by LEO's, to do so in a heavily lit and crowded area. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-12-2015, 09:51 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: How so? Was the guy yelling? Posturing? Threatening? 

The bald guy is a former corrections officer by the way.

In many counties, all Sheriff's Dept. personnel start out as corrections officers.  What is your point?  did you not notice the body language of the man?  his nonchalant behavior, even his snippy tone, when reprimanded by the female?  It was obvious that he was looking to cause a scene.

[BmorePat87]

(07-12-2015, 09:51 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: How so? Was the guy yelling? Posturing? Threatening? 

The bald guy is a former corrections officer by the way.

I can see why he is a former and not current CO.

Again, you're going to have a hard time claiming "self defense" when you pummeled a man for grabbing your camera after you already broke free of him. .

[jfkbengals]

(07-12-2015, 08:50 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: No. The security guard never identified himself. And he is not allowed to place his hands ( assault and battery) on the bald guy. He never says a word, much less asks him to leave.the security guard should be charged with attempted murder, endagnering and illegal discharge of a fire arm.

Can I buy some pot from you?

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In many counties, all Sheriff's Dept. personnel start out as corrections officers.  What is your point?  did you not notice the body language of the man?  his nonchalant behavior, even his snippy tone, when reprimanded by the female?  It was obvious that he was looking to cause a scene.

Lol. 

'Officer to dispatch. Yeah, we've got a guy here acting nonchalantly. We're gonna need some back up'. 

The bald guy is a former corrections officer. The security are from a private firm.

I got it backwards. My bad. The guy with the camera is who I keep referring to as the bald guy. The guy with the camera is a former corrections officer.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I can see why he is a former and not current CO.

Again, you're going to have a hard time claiming "self defense" when you pummeled a man for grabbing your camera after you already broke free of him. .

He broke free because he pummeled him. He pummeled him again because he reached for his equalizer. 


The private security guard can't act under the law in manners LEO's can. And neither may accost you without identifying themselves or probable cause. Furthermore, the guard has no right to assault the bald guy with a weapon ( the lanyard ) then attempt to upgrade the weapon to a gun. You guys are funny. But its sad. 

This is no way different than if I attempted to remove your wallet from your person. You have every right to defend your property.