Which one is guilty of assault?

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2015, 09:09 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: 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.

Rep

(07-14-2015, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

Rep.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-14-2015, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not once he no longer had a hold on the lanyard.

To me it looks like everyone diod something stupid.

Yeah, to grab his gun. 

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2015, 01:21 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Yeah, to grab his gun. 

There is no way possible to see this.

[Devils Advocate]

UPDATE

'Camera guy' Mike Skidmore's been indicted by the Grand Jury. Case will go to trial unless he plea's out.

source

[Beaker]

(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.

If you already knew then why did you even ask?

[Devils Advocate]

(07-31-2015, 11:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: If you already knew then why did you even ask?

I do know. I didn't ask myself the question there, genius. 

[Beaker]

(07-31-2015, 11:34 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I do know. I didn't ask myself the question there, genius. 

So you just wanted to tell people who answered that they were wrong?

[Devils Advocate]

(08-01-2015, 10:22 AM)Beaker Wrote: So you just wanted to tell people who answered that they were wrong?

[fredtoast]

(07-31-2015, 11:34 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I do know. I didn't ask myself the question there, genius. 

Considering that the Attorney general and the grand jury disagree with you you might want to back off on the condescending attitude.

Just because you think you know does not mean you really know.  It appears that you based your opinion on what you wanted to happen instead of actual knowledge of how the law works.


I will say that it appears Skidmore might have been indicted on some charges that won't stick.  But when he attacked the officer after he had broken free then he was no longer acting in self defense. You claim you see the officer drawing his gun, but that just is not true.

[Devils Advocate]

(08-01-2015, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering that the Attorney general and the grand jury disagree with you you might want to back off on the condescending attitude.

Just because you think you know does not mean you really know.  It appears that you based your opinion on what you wanted to happen instead of actual knowledge of how the law works.


I will say that it appears Skidmore might have been indicted on some charges that won't stick.  But when he attacked the officer after he had broken free then he was no longer acting in self defense. You claim you see the officer drawing his gun, but that just is not true.

You're the second member that's called me condescending lately. I really didn't think I've been, but I'll take it to heart. I apologize.

 Beeker was referencing my status, which is tongue and cheek, as was my above response to him, mostly. I presumed the  wasn't necessary, I'll try to keep it in mind for future posts ( that was condescending  ). 

As far as the indictment, it means little. Conviction means more. My opinion is just that -- opinion.  knowledge of the law or lack thereof, notwithstanding. But I know a lil    
I did post the update, which is opposite of my argument for the guy. That in and of itself should indicate that I'm willing to be wrong and in fact, not condescending. 

How do you know he wasn't reaching for his gun? If I can't see that he was, it stands to reason that you can't see that he wasn't. The fact that a shot was fired indicates that he did reach for his weapon. And Ohio law states he only has to perceive a threat, which he did because other guards were ready to pounce and How was he to know the burly council members behind him weren't likeminded?

I hope he doesn't plead out so we can see the results of the trial. 

[Beaker]

(08-01-2015, 12:43 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Beeker was referencing my status, which is tongue and cheek, as was my above response to him, mostly.

No, I was referencing the fact that you asked the question in the OP, then told the fist person who replied that they were wrong.

[Devils Advocate]

(08-01-2015, 04:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: No, I was referencing the fact that you asked the question in the OP, then told the fist person who replied that they were wrong.

I see how it reads that way, but I wasn't necessarily saying he was wrong unequivocally. I was just stating my position. 

I'll try to be more aware of what I write in the future.