Crave: Guard vs. Skater (WTF?)

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Ok, this may of been shown before, I'm not sure. I've seen several skater vs. person videos. This one, I haven't seen before now, I was looking at another video and clicked on this one.

http://video.craveonline.com/video/i...showVideo=1577

Professional opinions? I remember someone said something about "confiscating the kid's skateboard," and trying to justify this. I'll tell you this: If I observed this happening, I would of been squarely on the side of the skater - a private citizen was committing several breaches of the peace against another private citizen, including aggarvated assault to start it off.

I'm taking it this way NY, by the "NY Tough Guy" act the guard was putting on. Its one thing to order someone off your property. Its another to start baiting them to remain, challenging them to fight you, and then charging after another bystandard. After he swung on the skater, I think I might of even been motivated enough to OC them both to terminate the fight, after calling 911 to report a crazed lunatic with a shirt with patches on it vs. a group of skaters.

So, who thinks what about this video? I know it was mentioned in passing, but yeah, this should be training material in why the police hate security guards.

[Tennsix Member Find all posts View Profile Close Tennsix]

The officer was wrong. There is not other way to say it. Even without the video, there is more than enough PC to charge the officer.

On a lighter note, that kid didn't want anything to do with that officer after a few well placed punches.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

The officer was wrong. There is not other way to say it. Even without the video, there is more than enough PC to charge the officer.

On a lighter note, that kid didn't want anything to do with that officer after a few well placed punches.

Even more amusingly, they traded some hard blows, and both walked away unscathed.

[Guest Close Guest]

So, who thinks what about this video?

I thought the video was funny.

I noticed that the security guard followed the skaters onto public property and continued to antagonize them. Not a good idea.

Watch closely when the skater is on the sidewalk. He sets his board down and slides it into the security guard's leg (simple assualt)..no bodily injury..but definatly illegal. The guard should have stayed on the company property....but its illegal to push your skateboard into someone no matter how slight. After being assaulted the security guard takes his board.

Was it legal for him to take the board? Couldn't say: I work in California not NY. For all I know in NY you may not have the right to take something that someone has assaulted you with.

Look at the the skater: he acts all tough at first "Is that an idle threat"..."I'm going down when?" Then at the end he avoids the security guard and asks for his name. What a wimp.
I bet he called Daddy's lawyer later that night.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Please indicate the California Penal Code or California Administrative Code that authorizes a private citizen to seize property during a citizen's arrest.

While there is the authority of a private citizen to use as much force as required to execute an arrest under CPC, or to defend themselves or another from attack under CPC, I have never heard of a penal code in California which authorizes private citizens police powers of seizure.

But, I do know its always good to ask questions, and see who can come up with answers. So, who can show me a california law that authorizes the seizure of property?

This is almost like the "is resisting a citizen's arrest illegal in California?" question. While there is no specific statute stating that resisting a citizen's arrest (that I remember) is illegal, the use of force statute in CPC authorizes the arresting citizen to use force to gain compliance.

[Arff312 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Arff312]

Please indicate the California Penal Code or California Administrative Code that authorizes a private citizen to seize property during a citizen's arrest.

While there is the authority of a private citizen to use as much force as required to execute an arrest under CPC, or to defend themselves or another from attack under CPC, I have never heard of a penal code in California which authorizes private citizens police powers of seizure.

But, I do know its always good to ask questions, and see who can come up with answers. So, who can show me a california law that authorizes the seizure of property?

This is almost like the "is resisting a citizen's arrest illegal in California?" question. While there is no specific statute stating that resisting a citizen's arrest (that I remember) is illegal, the use of force statute in CPC authorizes the arresting citizen to use force to gain compliance.

While you may not be able to sieze drugs or contraband you may sieze weapons after the arrest is made.You may also search the suspect for weapons or possible weapons and remove them.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

While you may not be able to sieze drugs or contraband you may sieze weapons after the arrest is made.You may also search the suspect for weapons or possible weapons and remove them.

I know this sounds silly, but did California codify that? Alot of states, for some reason, never bothered to codify it. We get to do that as "reasonable force" to protect ourselves from attack.

I know in some states, the decision to search after or before cuffing is hotly debated, as frisk incidental to arrest is a police power, not a citizen's right. We were trained in Florida to gain consent to search, or not search at all, simply leave them in cuffs, because only a LEO has the authority to conduct a post arrest search. In this case, the arrest was not to "arrest," but was to prevent the violent offender from further harming you, himself, or another.

[Arff312 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Arff312]

I know this sounds silly, but did California codify that? Alot of states, for some reason, never bothered to codify it. We get to do that as "reasonable force" to protect ourselves from attack.

I know in some states, the decision to search after or before cuffing is hotly debated, as frisk incidental to arrest is a police power, not a citizen's right. We were trained in Florida to gain consent to search, or not search at all, simply leave them in cuffs, because only a LEO has the authority to conduct a post arrest search. In this case, the arrest was not to "arrest," but was to prevent the violent offender from further harming you, himself, or another.

When i recived my guard card i was told that we may search for weapons. Personally i will remove anything that may be a waepon (Guns, Knives, Needles, Pens Etc...) A person who has been arrested and cuffed by me does not stay armed. Just because the person is cuffed whos to say that when i turn my back to get a camera or something they arent able to get to a weapon. I come from a police background and Officer safety is huge to me. Some of my pet peeves is not having backup available, dispatchers not answering etc... I may be over steping my bounds in saying that but i would rather be alive and jobless then dead and still have a job. I do security part time because i want to not because i have to. I have a regular full time job but enjoy security/ Law Enforcement.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

When i recived my guard card i was told that we may search for weapons. Personally i will remove anything that may be a waepon (Guns, Knives, Needles, Pens Etc...) A person who has been arrested and cuffed by me does not stay armed. Just because the person is cuffed whos to say that when i turn my back to get a camera or something they arent able to get to a weapon. I come from a police background and Officer safety is huge to me. Some of my pet peeves is not having backup available, dispatchers not answering etc... I may be over steping my bounds in saying that but i would rather be alive and jobless then dead and still have a job. I do security part time because i want to not because i have to. I have a regular full time job but enjoy security/ Law Enforcement.

Ok, that settles that. Florida had no training on arrest, as there is no law in Florida allowing a private citizen to make an arrest, the court acknoledges the "felony detainment" principle. Basically, Florida's state training indicates that security should not arrest, as they are only present to report property crimes to their client.

Florida had a "detain for breach of the peace" statute, but it was removed in the 1990s.

[Guest Close Guest]

Not all rights are outlined in legislation. Not all rights are codified.
If I ever were to make a private citizen's arrest, I would definitely do a thorough pat down on the subject. Safety is what's on my mind...not legal intricacies.

[Charger Member Find all posts View Profile Close Charger]

Well, to add to this debate, I'll throw Oregon's rules into the mix...

Searches:
Private Security Officers can ASK for permission to search a subject at anytime... if they get consent, it's game on... once an arrest is made, a search is justified for the Officer's safety..

Confiscating:
Unless the item is a weapon, this is not justifiable... HOWEVER... when it comes to contraband items (marijuana, MIP tobacco, etc), the vast majority of the Police agencies around Portland actually encourage this practice: Make the SUSPECT destroy the item in front of you... Gets rid of the contraband, (hopefully) teaches the subject a lesson, and saves PD from having to respond on a minor offense...
As far as this particular situation goes, the ONLY grounds this guy would've had for confiscating the skateboard, was IF he had PD responding, and wanted to present it to them as a weapon used against him... but he'd be hard pressed to prove that... lol

Be safe guys!

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Well, to add to this debate, I'll throw Oregon's rules into the mix...

Searches:
Private Security Officers can ASK for permission to search a subject at anytime... if they get consent, it's game on... once an arrest is made, a search is justified for the Officer's safety..

Confiscating:
Unless the item is a weapon, this is not justifiable... HOWEVER... when it comes to contraband items (marijuana, MIP tobacco, etc), the vast majority of the Police agencies around Portland actually encourage this practice: Make the SUSPECT destroy the item in front of you... Gets rid of the contraband, (hopefully) teaches the subject a lesson, and saves PD from having to respond on a minor offense...
As far as this particular situation goes, the ONLY grounds this guy would've had for confiscating the skateboard, was IF he had PD responding, and wanted to present it to them as a weapon used against him... but he'd be hard pressed to prove that... lol

Be safe guys!

I like the "destruction at own hands" idea. We used to make kids pour their alcohol out. It was their choice, pour it out, or get wrung through the system - from the MIP alcohol, open container, trespass, and criminal mischief points of view.

Yeah, if a suspect or subject consents to search, then that's their problem. The only thing you have to watch out for is acting under color of authority. While private citizens have no color of law or authority, if the "victim" percieves that the private security officer is acting under color of law, authority, or custom, then there may be a civil rights violation. That usually stems from either limited arrest powers in certain circumstances (NOT citizen's arrest usually, but that has happened), or the SO making the victim believe he has color of law behind his actions.

[davis002 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close davis002]

Here's my take on what I observed in the video...

Right away I couldn't help but shake my head. I see a security officer lacking any kind of command presence, and his uniform looked as if he had been sleeping in it. At no point did I see him portray any degree of professionalism in his handling of the incident. I was very disappointed that he repeated "you're a bad kid" several times. For one, you cannot even begin to achieve cooperation or compliance when you express personal feelings that are based merely on prejudice. Surprisingly, the juvenile male was complying after the security officer told him to "get lost". At that point, this incompetent officer would have won had he left it at that. So now we have the juvenile walking away. The officer assumes he has won, since they are starting to depart. He feels that the best thing to say next is, "Next time you come back, I?ll break your arm." What was he thinking?! The kid called him out perfectly. It was in fact an idle threat. He would have been better off stating, "If you return, I?ll have you cited for trespassing." So now, he has escalated the conflict to the point where he has virtually no chance of back peddling his way out of it, unless he just shuts his mouth and returns to the building. Now he decides to approach this juvenile, in a manner that put him at a terrible disadvantage had the juvenile decided to assault him. Assuming both were right-handed, the juvenile was in a good position to throw a punch, and defend himself with his board in his left hand. The officer is standing with his body slightly bladed towards the juvenile with his right side, putting himself at a disadvantage. oh oh oh... and he uses that line "you are a bad kid" yet again! After a few more half-brained comments by the officer, the juvenile again starts to depart. This is where I think the officer realized he has evening news written on his forehead and "attacks" the juvenile with the camera. His friends step in, and the officer provokes them even more. A few moments later, the officer is now provoking the juvenile with the skateboard again. This time they are both on public property. Several times the officer puts himself in danger of getting clocked by the skateboard, as it is now in his right hand. If you look close when the juvenile drops the skateboard, it doesn't appear that the juvenile purposely meant to bump the officer in the leg. It was the officer?s choice to stand that close in an attempt to intimidate. The officer clearly, without claim of right, stole the skateboard. He stole it; you can't describe it any better. The juvenile attempts to take his property back and the officer assaulted him by throwing him to the ground. One can argue that the juvenile assaulted the officer first, but the officer just committed a crime by stealing the skateboard. Now they start exchanging punches. After they are done exchanging punches, the officer continues to provoke him! You hear him mutter, "Go for it." Finally the officer does what he should have done a long time ago, and he heads inside.

Basically, the juvenile male committed nothing more than Trespassing. The officer on the other hand committed Assault, Disorderly Conduct, and Robbery.

Sorry for the long rambling response, but I?m about 5 minutes from hitting the hay. Anyone agree or disagree with my viewing of the incident?

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

I would say that about summarizes it, Davis. Skater 1, Idiot 0.

[Charger Member Find all posts View Profile Close Charger]

Yeah, if a suspect or subject consents to search, then that's their problem. The only thing you have to watch out for is acting under color of authority. While private citizens have no color of law or authority, if the "victim" percieves that the private security officer is acting under color of law, authority, or custom, then there may be a civil rights violation. That usually stems from either limited arrest powers in certain circumstances (NOT citizen's arrest usually, but that has happened), or the SO making the victim believe he has color of law behind his actions.

Very true, but I was speaking from the standpoint of actually arresting your perp... Oregon has established that for the sake of Officer Safety, consent isn't needed once the person has been placed under arrest for a crime the SO witnessed....
Some of the rules Oregon has are ridiculous, but some of them are quite handy... they added one a couple years ago titled "Unlawful use of a laser pointer", which actually makes it misdemeanor to point one at anyone in uniform, whether they're LEO's or SO's... came in handy a few times with some juveniles who thought they were funny and didn't have to obey our commands

Now if only I could convince Washington to adopt a few of Oregon's laws, I'd be set... lol

Be safe!