Login

**BmorePat87** · 07-13-2015, 12:10 AM

(07-12-2015, 11:55 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Lunatics impersonate officers all the ***** time. That's why LEO's carry ID cards, aside from their badges. And they must present them upon request. Why oh why do you suppose that is? Who cares if these guys had shirts with badges embroidered on them, that's hardly identifying. But I'll concede that point none the less.

I'll tell ya what, go up to any LEO and attempt to grab their lanyard or even put your hands on them.

You guys act like officers of the law are above the law. They're not in any way shape or form. They are not allowed to assault you. Still, this guard wasn't even a a LEO, so there's that. They're just plain ol citizens.

Yeah the video clearly states this guy has had run ins with them before. It's irrelevant.

These are the men from the begining of the video who are working the security at the door...

I'm sure he thought they were lunatics impersonating security when they walked in and he identified them as security.

Also, according to the news report on this, he grabbed the woman's shoulder and leaned over to record her name tag because they were about to make the meeting closed to the public.

Couples with him attacking the security officer, and I'm not even sure what argument there is for this guy. I already gave you the first punch to free himself, but he continued to attack. lol...

**BmorePat87** · 07-13-2015, 12:13 AM

(07-13-2015, 12:08 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: How can camera guy attack first when security guy put his hands on camera guy first? Not just put his hands on him, but went for the lanyard which then became a weapon?

Because the rest of society recognizes the difference between grabbing a camera and landing a dozen blows to someone's head/body. You keep ignoring the fact that Ohio has a duty to retreat.

(07-12-2015, 11:56 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: You don't get to claim self defense while carrying a gun.

Unfortunately for you, the law disagrees.

Ben Richards · 07-13-2015, 12:25 AM

The old man firing the gun at the old insane hippie with the camera needs to lose his job and face some criminal charges. What a ****ing moron. He should not be allowed to own a gun or carry a gun. Morons with killing machines need to be stopped.

**Devils Advocate** · 07-13-2015, 12:30 AM

(07-13-2015, 12:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: These are the men from the begining of the video who are working the security at the door...

I'm sure he thought they were lunatics impersonating security when they walked in and he identified them as security.

Also, according to the news report on this, he grabbed the woman's shoulder and leaned over to record her name tag because they were about to make the meeting closed to the public.

Couples with him attacking the security officer, and I'm not even sure what argument there is for this guy. I already gave you the first punch to free himself, but he continued to attack. lol...

I guess the report failed to mention the agenda for the meeting changed, which was this guy's complaint, which according to what I've read is illegal. And as I've pointed out in my response to Fred, there's 'sunshine laws' that deal explicitly with unruly behavior at town meetings of which this council failed to followed, in tacit, deeming this guy non threatening and in fact opened the floor up to hear his complaint(s) not to mention the fact that he was non threatening. The guards didn't witness an assault ( touching the lady ) thereby had no right to take physical action. Throughout the meeting he remained calm and posed no emanate threat whatsoever. Only after he was accosted by an armed assailant did he use force. He had no avenue of retreat as he was surrounded and had to engage the guard again once he reached for his equalizer.

**Devils Advocate** · 07-13-2015, 12:31 AM

(07-13-2015, 12:13 AM)XBmorePat87 Wrote: Because the rest of society recognizes the difference between grabbing a camera and landing a dozen blows to someone's head/body. You keep ignoring the fact that Ohio has a duty to retreat.

Retreat to where? He was surrounded.

Quote:Unfortunately for you, the law disagrees.

Let me rephrase. You don't get claim self defense while being the aggressor.

***michaelsean*** · 07-13-2015, 10:01 AM

I'm going to say the guy who fired the gun probably needs to move along, but the old dude is definitely guilty of felonious assault. You do have to be in fear of bodily injury before you can just go pummeling on someone.

**BmorePat87** · 07-13-2015, 10:31 AM

(07-13-2015, 12:31 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Retreat to where? He was surrounded.

Let me rephrase. You don't get claim self defense while being the aggressor.

Surrounded? lol

And that would be why Sandals McBaldo cannot claim self defense.

fredtoast · 07-13-2015, 02:15 PM

(07-13-2015, 12:04 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: He didn't do the exact same thing either.

The camera guy act d in self defense.

1. Yes he did do the exact same thing. when the lady told him it was inappropriate to place his hands on someone else he said "I can do it because the guards have done it to me."

2. He acted in self defense whan he first pushed the officer away. If it had ended there then he would have been fine. His decision to jump they guy and start punching him ended the claim of self defense. He was clearly the aggressor at that point. He was not trying to escape, and the guy was no longer coming at him. That is the end of the self defense claim.

**Devils Advocate** · 07-13-2015, 06:17 PM

Duty to retreat only applies to the use of lethal force.

The defender cannot have started or have been the first aggressor in the incident.

Only a person who “was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray” may use self defense.

The danger perceived by the defender doesn't have to be actual. It's only required that he believe his safety is at peril.

The only question is, did camera guy act reasonably? In my estimation he did.

**Devils Advocate** · 07-13-2015, 06:28 PM

(07-13-2015, 02:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Yes he did do the exact same thing. when the lady told him it was inappropriate to place his hands on someone else he said "I can do it because the guards have done it to me."

No. Camera guy attempted to repel an attacker and thief. The guard initiated and escalated the situation. Per my previous post, camera guy only needs to prove he felt threatened.

Quote:2. He acted in self defense whan he first pushed the officer away. If it had ended there then he would have been fine. His decision to jump they guy and start punching him ended the claim of self defense. He was clearly the aggressor at that point. He was not trying to escape, and the guy was no longer coming at him. That is the end of the self defense claim.

His claim stands. Any knowledgeable jury will side with the defense ... Presuming he has competent council. [/quote]

**BmorePat87** · 07-13-2015, 06:36 PM

(07-13-2015, 06:17 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Duty to retreat only applies to the use of lethal force.

The defender cannot have started or have been the first aggressor in the incident.

Only a person who “was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray” may use self defense.

The danger perceived by the defender doesn't have to be actual. It's only required that he believe his safety is at peril.

The only question is, did camera guy act reasonably? In my estimation he did.

That's because grabbing the camera was not assault. It was a professional security guard doing his job after a man touched a woman.

You can have beef with the firing of the gun. I think we all do. I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that this man was acting "reasonably" when he started pummeling the man for escorting him out of this room. I guess that's why Skidmore was charged with assault and the guard wasn't.

**BmorePat87** · 07-13-2015, 06:38 PM

According to the news report, the camera guy, Mike Skidmore, bit the second security guard's face. This man is unhinged.

***Benton*** · 07-13-2015, 06:46 PM

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/10/bci-search-targeted-skidmores-social-media-posts/29997497/#

Quote:When Skidmore refused to leave, court security officers Chuck Kochis and Tim Norris were called in to remove him, the report said. That's when Skidmore allegedly "became combative."

What's the name of their security firm? I'm betting it's Chuck-Norris Security.

**Devils Advocate** · 07-13-2015, 06:57 PM

(07-13-2015, 06:36 PM)EBmorePat87 Wrote: That's because grabbing the camera was not assault. It was a professional security guard doing his job after a man touched a woman.

how do they know he touched her?

Quote:You can have beef with the firing of the gun. I think we all do. I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that this man was acting "reasonably" when he started pummeling the man for escorting him out of this room. I guess that's why Skidmore was charged with assault and the guard wasn't.

[/quote]

There was zero indication the guard was 'escorting' him out. Nobody asks him to leave or threatens to remove him. The guard attempts to steal the guys camera. That's it. And Skidmore can reasonably assume the guard was going to use the lanyard as a weapon to choke him out and/or drag him out like a dog on a leash. Being charged is a far cry from being convicted.

**Se ky bengal** · 07-13-2015, 08:20 PM

(07-12-2015, 08:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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

Very well said!!!!! Why was the gun fired? He should be charged for putting everyon ein that room just or putting their life in harms way . At least 10-12 counts wanton endangerment.

**SunsetBengal** · 07-13-2015, 08:40 PM

(07-13-2015, 06:46 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/10/bci-search-targeted-skidmores-social-media-posts/29997497/#

What's the name of their security firm? I'm betting it's Chuck-Norris Security.

After seeing the guy get his face smashed, and bitten; I'm sure that Chuck would most definitely want his namesake removed from that firm..

***bfine32*** · 07-13-2015, 08:50 PM

(07-13-2015, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going to say the guy who fired the gun probably needs to move along...

I don't even think that is a question. He needs to hang 'em up out of shame alone.

The thing is; if Sandals would have turned pacifist on first touch from the world's worst security guard, he would have had much more ammo for his cause. Sandals lost that once he treated the security guard like one of the 3 stooges.

**SteelCitySouth** · 07-14-2015, 09:09 AM

This is a case involving a room filled with nothing but idiots. This is what you get when you have a room full of idiots.

***michaelsean*** · 07-14-2015, 10:47 AM

For all I know I may have agreed with the old man, but he was such a douche I didn't care. One of those "I know my rights" guys like morons who walk around grocery stores with rifles strapped across their chests.

fredtoast · 07-14-2015, 01:16 PM

(07-13-2015, 06:57 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: And Skidmore can reasonably assume the guard was going to use the lanyard as a weapon to choke him out and/or drag him out like a dog on a leash.

Not once he no longer had a hold on the lanyard.

To me it looks like everyone diod something stupid.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me