Which one is guilty of assault?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Sorry DA (maybe you're trying to fulfill the duties of your screen name?) but the bald prick with the camera not only completely initiated the situation but was wholly in the wrong. Given the nature of the ensuing struggle using a firearm was not appropriate but that does nothing to exonerate the behavior of the person responsible for initiating the entire confrontation. Quite simply the you tube warrior (you can tell he's an asshole by his sandals btw ) created a situation in which he could claim to be oppressed. He's a piece of shit and he's lucky that everyone, sans the one who discharged his firearm, exercised the restraint they did. He should spend several years in prison for his assheaded actions.

[BmorePat87]

(07-12-2015, 10:17 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 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. 

He punched him once and broke free. That's fine.

That law protects him up to that point.

He then charges him and starts swinging. At this point, he is assaulting and not defending himself.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry DA (maybe you're trying to fulfill the duties of your screen name?) but the bald prick with the camera not only completely initiated the situation but was wholly in the wrong.  Given the nature of the ensuing struggle using a firearm was not appropriate but that does nothing to exonerate the behavior of the person responsible for initiating the entire confrontation.  Quite simply the you tube warrior (you can tell he's an asshole by his sandals btw  :ninja: ) created a situation in which he could claim to be oppressed.  He's a piece of shit and he's lucky that everyone, sans the one who discharged his firearm, exercised the restraint they did.  He should spend several years in prison for his assheaded actions.

Lol. I said most of the time, SSF. 

How in the hell do you figure he initiated it? It's right there in glorious color for all to see. He wasn't combative, insulting or aggressive until accosted by a private citizen. He has every right to defend himself, considering he found himself surrounded. The guard may not be charged  ( a travesty if so ) but I'd bet the camera guy isn't either.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2015, 10:17 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 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. 

The only issue I had was your assertion that the Security Guard didn't identify himself; as he most certainly did. Why do you think they wear uniforms and badges? Dude with the camera had already made physical contact with the female at the table. Once the dude starts wailing on the security guard, IMO the guard has every right to escalate force. 

WTS, the security guard that first approached the guy with the camera most likely will not win security guard of the year.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He punched him once and broke free. That's fine.

That law protects him up to that point.

He then charges him and starts swinging. At this point, he is assaulting and not defending himself.

Except ... you know, the guard reaches for his gun. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only issue I had was your assertion that the Security Guard didn't identify himself; as he most certainly did. Why do you think they wear uniforms and badges? Dude with the camera had already made physical contact with the female at the table. Once the dude starts wailing on the security guard, IMO the guard has every right to escalate force. 

WTS, the security guard that first approached the guy with the camera most likely will not win security guard of the year.

The camera guy clearly states, as the guard approaches that he doesn't. And he doesn't. You have no idea what that yellow patch on his shirt is, don't act like you do.  

I really don't wanna defend what happened at the table with the lady. However, she clearly said' you can look for yourself'. He could found another way to do so. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2015, 10:33 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: The camera guy clearly states, as the guard approaches that he doesn't. And he doesn't. You have no idea what that yellow patch on his shirt is, don't act like you do.  

He calls them security. Don't act like he didn't

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2015, 10:28 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Lol. I said most of the time, SSF. 

How in the hell do you figure he initiated it? It's right there in glorious color for all to see. He wasn't combative, insulting or aggressive until accosted by a private citizen. He has every right to defend himself, considering he found himself surrounded. The guard may not be charged  ( a travesty if so ) but I'd bet the camera guy isn't either.  

He was intentionally aggressive to a female staff member.  He was approached by a clearly displayed security officer.  He then engaged said security officer in a physical confrontation.  This isn't a back alley, the people engaging him were clearly officials.  His inane claim of self defense will be eviscerated in court, as it should be.  He's an asshole who wanted to instigate a confrontation and he got what he wanted.  Again, he's very lucky he didn't get more that he bargained for as most of the staff showed remarkable restraint.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He calls them security. Don't act like he didn't

'That security does not have ID ...'

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2015, 10:51 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 'That security does not have ID ...'

As I said: he identifies them as security. It's gonna be awful hard to prove he didn't know they were security; however, apparently there are those that will try.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He was intentionally aggressive to a female staff member.  He was approached by a clearly displayed security officer.  He then engaged said security officer in a physical confrontation.  This isn't a back alley, the people engaging him were clearly officials.  His inane claim of self defense will be eviscerated in court, as it should be.  He's an asshole who wanted to instigate a confrontation and he got what he wanted.  Again, he's very lucky he didn't get more that he bargained for as most of the staff showed remarkable restraint.

'Intentionally Aggressive'? She told him to look. You've got it backwards. The guard engaged him. After grabbing the lanyard, it could be surmised to choke him out, and after the old guy inaudibly says something, which could be reasonably surmised as 'let go'.  The security were clearly aggressive and made no requests of the guy. They simply thought they had the right to assault him. yeah I guess it would take 'remarkable' restraint for 6 guys in their prime to subdue a guy with one foot in the grave. He did get more than he bargained for. The dufus security guy barely missed killing him. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 10:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: he identifies them as security. It's gonna be awful hard to prove he didn't know they were security; however, apparently there are those that will try.

He was repeating what the council members called them. Nevertheless, you're prolly right ... if he attempts to pursue that avenue. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-12-2015, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only issue I had was your assertion that the Security Guard didn't identify himself; as he most certainly did. Why do you think they wear uniforms and badges? Dude with the camera had already made physical contact with the female at the table. Once the dude starts wailing on the security guard, IMO the guard has every right to escalate force. 

WTS, the security guard that first approached the guy with the camera most likely will not win security guard of the year.

As bfine pointed out multiple times, the weird bald man identifies the security as security as soon as they walk in. He clearly has had a run in with them before. He accuses them of not identifying themselves the moment they walk in the door. LOL, they just walked in.

Not to mention the ***** shirts with stars on them clearly identifying them as security.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2015, 10:28 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote:  He wasn't combative, insulting or aggressive until accosted by a private citizen.

Actually he was being very threatening.  He was claiming that he had a right to put hands on anyone he wanted to just because some security guard had done it before.  Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?

"What the security guard did was terrible and inexcusable......Now I am going to do the exact same thing."

[BmorePat87]

(07-12-2015, 10:30 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Except ... you know, the guard reaches for his gun. 

except, you know, you're not even being honest at this point. It's on video. He punches once and the security guard lets go. He then charges and punches more before backing off.

The security guard is partially obscured and he may have been grabbing his gun, who knows, but at that point HE has the actual claim to self defense, not Sandals McBaldo, as he is being attacked. If McBaldo hopes to make a self defense claims, he had to retreat after breaking free witht he first punch. He does not. He charges and attacks.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 11:40 PM)NBmorePat87 Wrote: As bfine pointed out multiple times, the weird bald man identifies the security as security as soon as they walk in. He clearly has had a run in with them before. He accuses them of not identifying themselves the moment they walk in the door. LOL, they just walked in.

Not to mention the ***** shirts with stars on them clearly identifying them as security.

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. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 11:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: except, you know, you're not even being honest at this point. It's on video. He punches once and the security guard lets go. He then charges and punches more before backing off.

The security guard is partially obscured and he may have been grabbing his gun, who knows, but at that point HE has the actual claim to self defense, not Sandals McBaldo, as he is being attacked. If McBaldo hopes to make a self defense claims, he had to retreat after breaking free witht he first punch. He does not. He charges and attacks.

You don't get to claim self defense while carrying a gun. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

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

Sure you can if you're attacked first, you most certainly can use it to defend yourself.  It's why they carry them in the first place.  Baldy attacked first, pretty simple IMO.

[Devils Advocate]

(07-12-2015, 11:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually he was being very threatening.  He was claiming that he had a right to put hands on anyone he wanted to just because some security guard had done it before.  Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?

"What the security guard did was terrible and inexcusable......Now I am going to do the exact same thing."

How was he being threatening though?

The council gave him the floor so to speak. There's rules for dealing with unruly participants at town meetings. This council followed none of them, leading one to believe, in their estimation, he wasn't unruly. 

It's not absurd once he's been assaulted. And you should know, there mere threatening gesture of approaching the camera guy without so much as a word equals assault. Once he placed his hands on him arguably to choke him out, that equals battery. Top it off with illegal discharge, attempt d murder, and a plethora of other charges. He didn't do the exact same thing either. The camera guy act d in self defense. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-13-2015, 12:04 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Sure you can if you're attacked first, you most certainly can use it to defend yourself.  It's why they carry them in the first place.  Baldy attacked first, pretty simple IMO.

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?