Ohio Courthouse Security/Citizen Confrontation *Video*

[The Unknown Poster]

Thought I'd post this as it's very clear video and really interesting.  A lot of different perspectives on this.  The Citizen was charged with felony assault.  What do you think?

 

https://youtu.be/yZ-eJ8eNfd0

[bigg jay]

The guy is 100% deserving of being charged with assault.

 

That said, the 1st security guard involved did a piss poor job there.  The guard didn't need to pull his gun & fire.  He  also should have communicated with the guy... he didn't ask him to leave or stop recording, he  just grabs the camera.

[Rich]

That is a crazy video.

 

Re-watched it a couple of times, it looks like the guard only pulls his gun after he is being attacked.  In that situation though, I don't think pulling his gun is warranted.  There is a 2nd security guard in the room and if he would have defended and fought back rather than reach for the gun, he could have easily of overpowered the man.  

 

Damn lucky no one got shot.

 

The guard should have used verbal words to identify himself and ask the man to leave before grabbing his camera.  The Skidmore guy I think was trying to make a point about not knowing what the guards are when he fought back.  

 

Stupidity all around on that one.

[The Unknown Poster]

I agree with you guys.

 

I worked security for nearly 20 years so I see a few things that jumped out at me.

 

The 'victim' had an agenda.  His holding his GoPro camera like that and speaking "calmly" as he was, was part of his agenda.  He was hoping to "catch" something he could use to shame, embarrass or ridicule the government. 

 

And as you said Rich, his remarks that since security was not wearing their ID badges that he didnt know who they were right before he begins throwing punches was a set up.  He wanted to get into a physical confrontation.  He was ready for it.  He should be charged.  It sounds like he was one of those "the government works for me so I will take every opportunity to exercise my right to annoy elected officials at every turn" guys.

 

However, in his defense, he raises a few good points.  Firstly, why isnt security wearing ID?  This is actually a very interesting topic.  They will say their reason for not wearing them or "turning them over" is to protect their privacy out of an abundance of caution for their safety.  They dont want their full names to be blasted all over the internet for someone to use in taking "revenge" on them or their families.  I think we can all accept that.

 

Police wear their surnames on their uniforms.  Im surprised they still do, to be honest.  When I worked security, we'd have angry patrons demand our names (and tell us we are legally obligated to do so, which ofcourse we are not).  I'd always give them my first name.  I had co-workers that would provide a fake name.  I put a stop to that.  First name and the phone number of the head office...go ahead and complain about me.

 

I worked corrections too and a lot of people taped over the name on their ID badges.  I never did, but I understand why many did. 

 

If I was the city government in this case, i would have instructed security to wear their ID badges in plain sight and provide their names upon request. 

 

The city clearly over-reacted here.  Skidmore did not inappropriately touch the female.  Though he might have thought twice about leaning in to film her badge that was hanging at chest height.  Security enters the room.  We dont know what security was told, presumably told to boot this guy.  Security One walks over and immediately grabs the camera that is around Skidmore's neck.

 

Supposedly this security is a former Sheriff's Officer so he should know better.  You know you're being recorded by your own cameras and the civilian's camera, why react that way?  My own experience was, if we were ejected a non-violent person who refused to leave, I'd also ask him nicely.  I'd explain why.  I'd entice (leave tonight and come back next week versus being barred forever).  And if all else fails I'd explain that if he did not leave, we would be in our rights to physically remove him.  And then we would.  There was no such warning here.

 

I also question the training, because of the failure to issue a warning and because of his reaction to being attacked.  He panicked.  Big time.  he made very little effort to defend himself using his supposed training and immediately went for his gun.  He also deliberately aimed the gun at Skidmore's gut so it was not an accidental discharge as he initially tried to claim.  The second security, who should not have been on the other side of the room to begin with, instinctively jumped in.  He had it right.  The first security, still in a panic mode is essentially useless at this point, stunned into doing nothing while his partner struggles on the floor.

 

I was actually with a cop friend of mine this weekend and meant to ask him about cameras.  We see so many videos where the law enforcement immediately reacts aggressively to cameras.  I say, you've got to embrace them and act as though you are always being filmed.  At the bar, when people would try to film us, they'd usually end up with a two-piece cell phone.  So I get it.  But its a different time.

 

Skidmore was rightfully charged.  The security should also be charged with firing his weapon and fired for doing the wrong thing from moment one.  And the council woman (I think she was city admin actually) should be cautioned to not cry wolf about "inappropriate touching".

[Rich]

I don't know what that guy was doing when he was leaning over the girl, but the thing that jumped into my mind is that he was filming her laptop. I know when I'm at work my laptop could have sensitive data on it and I would be very unhappy to have someone lean in and film it.

I'm betting that Skidmore and the city have a long long history. And while definitely not an excuse for how it was handled, I think it was kind of a setup on both sides. They wanted him to do something to justify them calling security. And he wanted them to do something to get it on camera.

Unfortunately they both got their wish.

[bigg jay]

I don't know what that guy was doing when he was leaning over the girl, but the thing that jumped into my mind is that he was filming her laptop. I know when I'm at work my laptop could have sensitive data on it and I would be very unhappy to have someone lean in and film it.

I'm betting that Skidmore and the city have a long long history. And while definitely not an excuse for how it was handled, I think it was kind of a setup on both sides. They wanted him to do something to justify them calling security. And he wanted them to do something to get it on camera.

Unfortunately they both got their wish.

 

Apparently he was checking her name tag.  He was on some rant about government workers not having proper ID which carried onto the security guards not having ID.

 

Depending on where her name tag was and how he touched it/her, there might be a very good reason why the one woman was scolding him for being inappropriate.

[The Unknown Poster]

I don't know what that guy was doing when he was leaning over the girl, but the thing that jumped into my mind is that he was filming her laptop. I know when I'm at work my laptop could have sensitive data on it and I would be very unhappy to have someone lean in and film it.

I'm betting that Skidmore and the city have a long long history. And while definitely not an excuse for how it was handled, I think it was kind of a setup on both sides. They wanted him to do something to justify them calling security. And he wanted them to do something to get it on camera.

Unfortunately they both got their wish.

Yes exactly.  The woman who was filmed responds to Skidmore saying security turns their badges around by saying "Ill show you mine" or "you can see mine", something like that. 

 

The issue of the city admin accusing him of inappropriate touching is another interesting side story to this.  If the woman in question gave him permission to look at her ID badge (which it sounds like to me) and he leans in to do so, thus "filming" her chest, then the city admin is being awfully petty.  I think its worse...because if it had been the guy who said "you can see mine", I bet the city admin wouldnt have called it inappropriate touching.  I didnt like the "women's victim" card being played there.

 

I agree.  Skidmore wanted to provoke a physical altercation.  The city wanted a physical altercation so they had recourse to likely bar him as he was an annoyance.  He seemed like an annoyance for sure.  Skidmore thinks he was in the right to "defend" himself from the mysterious unnamed guy "attacking" him.  I cant see him winning that case.  He fires off so many punches in the guys face.  Might be dropped from a felony though. 

 

Lots of "damn the man" types online calling this an attack on Skidmore's civil liberties.  Saying he had the right to defend himself.  The issue will be that security simply walked over and grabbed him with no warning or instruction.  But still, defending yourself has to be "reasonable".  And that is why the security should be charged too.  Its not reasonable to shoot a guy for punching you in the face.  Unless its The Rock or something.  But security will be hard pressed to say he was deathly afraid for his life, looking at Skidmore.