TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at Valley Plaza in Bakersfield,CA

"Journalist-North" wrote in message
...


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Which comes back to my earlier observation... Even if what they did was
technically legal (which I doubt), why did they think it was advantageous?
Surely they knew it would get them a tremendous amount of adverse publicity.

On 29 Oct 2004 19:15:08 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground


Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done
videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on
September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield
police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached
Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at
this point and leave the mall please,"

---snip---

Oh good LORD. This isn't about photography or the rights thereof,
this is about a confrontation between two idiots with egos. I can see
several different ways this situation could have been diffused but Mr.
cameraman decided to make a stand on his "rights" (so he could make
$$$) and Mr. security decided he wasn't going to let his authority be
ignored.

Look folks, you never, NEVER win an argument -on the spot- with law
enforcement of any stripe and you run the likely risk of physical
injury.

Just take what you have and walk away. If you feel you must, pursue
the matter LATER with officials and paperwork, when the situation
isn't tense and you have your "ducks in a row".

A second though to inject. I'm not taking Mr. Security's side, it
sounds like he made several professional mistakes too and is probably
the kind of jerk I hated working with...
BUT
I've worked security in the distant past and I can remember some tense
situations where passersby tried to get involved (for whatever reason)
and we had no time for a polite conversation as to why their safety
was in jeopardy or why they were making the situation worse and so a
quick "please move along" was all they got. One situation was a guy
holed up inside with a gun. We had to physically hustle one "I have a
right to be here" smartass out the door. Big stink got raised and the
fallout lasted for weeks but you KNOW he'd have sued us like mad had
he gotten shot sigh.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:54:02 -0400, Drifter
wrote:

On 29 Oct 2004 19:15:08 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground


Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done
videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on
September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield
police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached
Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at
this point and leave the mall please,"

---snip---

Oh good LORD. This isn't about photography or the rights thereof,
this is about a confrontation between two idiots with egos. I can see
several different ways this situation could have been diffused but Mr.
cameraman decided to make a stand on his "rights" (so he could make
$$$) and Mr. security decided he wasn't going to let his authority be
ignored.

Look folks, you never, NEVER win an argument -on the spot- with law
enforcement of any stripe and you run the likely risk of physical
injury.


But if you dont know they are law enforcement........

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:56:59 -0700, "Michael"
wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message ...
Mark M responds:

29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.


Not in the parking lot,

It's still private property.

not after a public incident (bank robbery),

Irrelevant. The fact that a crime is committed on private
property doesn't magically change it into public property.

not by
wrestling to the ground with no provocation,

The photographer was asked to stop taking taking pictures
and to leave, and refused to do so. That is provocation.

not without identifying himself
(the guard).

That is likely up to state or local laws, whether security
personnel are required to identify themselves.

Anyone who lays hands on me without previously identifying
himself as one with authority to do so is just another citizen and I
will accordingly defend myself on that basis.


What they've got here is a rent-a-cop who went over the line, way,
way over the line. I would be astonished if the news photographer doesn't file
suit, first for a civil rights violation and second as a result of assault and battery.

Hopefully he will file charges so you can see how the law
works in this country.

There are two malls in my area which are not more than a
quarter mile apart. For whatever strange legal reason, one's parking
lit is considered public and cops will tak people who don't fully stop
for an arterial sign. In the other, the cops have no authority to tag
for the same offense. My source for this is an ex-cop who is a traffic
school instructor.

Again, just pretend it was someone
coming onto your property and taking pictures without your
permission, and the mall's actions become utterly defensible.

Hopefully the rent-a-thug will get his ass kicked in court.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:20:05 -0400, Larry
wrote:

In article ,
says...
That is likely up to state or local laws, whether security
personnel are required to identify themselves.

What they've got here is a rent-a-cop who went over the line, way,
way over the line. I would be astonished if the news photographer doesn't file
suit, first for a civil rights violation and second as a result of assault and battery.

Hopefully he will file charges so you can see how the law
works in this country. Again, just pretend it was someone
coming onto your property and taking pictures without your
permission, and the mall's actions become utterly defensible.

Mike


Even police officers are required to identify themselves
before taking ANY physical action (except to protect life
\property in IMMEDIATE danger).

Many cases have been thrown out of court, and officers have
lost jobs, even gone to prison for taking physical action
before identifying themselves.

Hollering "Take me to the police" is a good protection in
such cases. Unless they have absolute proof you have
committed a crime, they have no legal right to handcuff you
or drag you away. (illegal restraint)

Only two classes of people may do these things legally:

Police Officers
Bounty Hunters

FWIW, there's a sign in the entrance to the San Bruno, CA,
library citing a city code that allows a librarian to detain a patron
suspected of removing materials not checked out, until police arrive.

I have no idea if it would stand up in court, or what limits
are placed on detaining you. It may be that they can only ask you to
hang around, then add on some kind of additional charge if you choose
not to comply, but are later visited by police based on e.g. a license
plate identification.


At no time do ANY un-deputized security officers have any
right to handcuff, restrain, or otherwise imprison any
citizen who was NOT caught committing a crime, and if he
WAS commiting a crime it had BETTER be backed up with
surveilance tapes. The now famous "Wynona Ryder case" would
have been a looser except for the tapes of her stealing
garments ect.

I know it happens all the time, and I know people put up
with it, but that doesn't make it legal.

I only know these things because I've been there, done
that.

When I was accosted by security people for taking pictures
at the local Mall (Crystal Mall, Waterford, Connecticut) I
INSISTED that they immediately call the police if they
thought I was "breaking the law".

They called my bluff, and told me if I wanted the cops
involved it was MY CHOICE.

So I called the local police on a non emergency line and
asked for an officer at a particular entrance to the mall.

Upon the arrival of an officer, after a few quick questions
they were chagrined. They had no signs posted forbiding
photography, and no written rule saying it wasnt permitted.

To my knowledge there is STILL (a year later) no signs or
written rules forbidding photography, and I still take
pictures there when Im in the mood. (usually while my wife
shops).

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:54:02 -0400, Drifter
wrote:

On 29 Oct 2004 19:15:08 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground


Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done
videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on
September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield
police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached
Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at
this point and leave the mall please,"

---snip---

Oh good LORD. This isn't about photography or the rights thereof,
this is about a confrontation between two idiots with egos. I can see
several different ways this situation could have been diffused but Mr.
cameraman decided to make a stand on his "rights" (so he could make
$$$) and Mr. security decided he wasn't going to let his authority be
ignored.

Yes it is about photographic rights. Are you trying to say
that the photographer's right to make $$$ (or not) should be abridged
by some mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging rent-a-thug?

The mall people should make damned sure their minions are
precisely aware of the absolute limits of their authority. They should
also tell them that they will be summarily fired for stepping over the
line. I suspect the minions are in many cases aware of the limits, but
are encouraged to push far enough to make the general population
think, "If they can control patrons' behavior in this way, then they
must know they're in the right."


Look folks, you never, NEVER win an argument -on the spot- with law
enforcement of any stripe and you run the likely risk of physical
injury.

Just take what you have and walk away. If you feel you must, pursue
the matter LATER with officials and paperwork, when the situation
isn't tense and you have your "ducks in a row".

A second though to inject. I'm not taking Mr. Security's side, it
sounds like he made several professional mistakes too and is probably
the kind of jerk I hated working with...
BUT
I've worked security in the distant past and I can remember some tense
situations where passersby tried to get involved (for whatever reason)
and we had no time for a polite conversation as to why their safety
was in jeopardy or why they were making the situation worse and so a
quick "please move along" was all they got. One situation was a guy
holed up inside with a gun. We had to physically hustle one "I have a
right to be here" smartass out the door. Big stink got raised and the
fallout lasted for weeks but you KNOW he'd have sued us like mad had
he gotten shot sigh.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:56:59 -0700, "Michael"
wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Mark M responds:

29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going
into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home
doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private
property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property
owner's
discretion.


Not in the parking lot,

It's still private property.

not after a public incident (bank robbery),

Irrelevant. The fact that a crime is committed on private
property doesn't magically change it into public property.

not by
wrestling to the ground with no provocation,

The photographer was asked to stop taking taking pictures
and to leave, and refused to do so. That is provocation.

not without identifying himself
(the guard).

That is likely up to state or local laws, whether security
personnel are required to identify themselves.

Anyone who lays hands on me without previously identifying
himself as one with authority to do so is just another citizen and I
will accordingly defend myself on that basis.


What they've got here is a rent-a-cop who went over the line, way,
way over the line. I would be astonished if the news photographer
doesn't file
suit, first for a civil rights violation and second as a result of
assault and battery.

Hopefully he will file charges so you can see how the law
works in this country.

There are two malls in my area which are not more than a
quarter mile apart. For whatever strange legal reason, one's parking
lit is considered public and cops will tak people who don't fully stop
for an arterial sign. In the other, the cops have no authority to tag
for the same offense. My source for this is an ex-cop who is a traffic
school instructor.

That sounds like Mission Valley and Fashion Valley malls in San Diego.
One has a "quasi-road" passing through which I assume is under the police's
control, while the other contains no publicly maintained roads. This is why
"stop signs" within mall parking lots are really just "suggestions" rather
than something you'll be ticketed for. It rather interesting to note when
there's a police car in the, and someone doesn't really stop at one of these
signs...that the police officer just sits there. I have to admit that I've
run them in police presence out of pure stubbornness...

wrote:


FWIW, there's a sign in the entrance to the San Bruno, CA,
library citing a city code that allows a librarian to detain a patron
suspected of removing materials not checked out, until police arrive.

I have no idea if it would stand up in court, or what limits
are placed on detaining you. It may be that they can only ask you to
hang around, then add on some kind of additional charge if you choose
not to comply, but are later visited by police based on e.g. a license
plate identification.


Maybe they could also identify the perp by the painfully red knuckles
after being soundly thwacked by the librarian's ruler. :P

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

wrote:


Anyone who lays hands on me without previously identifying
himself as one with authority to do so is just another citizen and I
will accordingly defend myself on that basis.

Oh man, that's a can of worms I can identify with. Despite my legal
position to do so, it took a mere 2.13 seconds to place my nose under a
well-used #12 Brogan. Yes, I got an apology and he got a reprimand -
but neither of us would want a encore.



There are two malls in my area which are not more than a
quarter mile apart. For whatever strange legal reason, one's parking
lit is considered public and cops will tak people who don't fully stop
for an arterial sign. In the other, the cops have no authority to tag
for the same offense. My source for this is an ex-cop who is a traffic
school instructor.


Is there a difference with respect to the municipality region?


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" wrote in message
...
wrote:


FWIW, there's a sign in the entrance to the San Bruno, CA,
library citing a city code that allows a librarian to detain a patron
suspected of removing materials not checked out, until police arrive.

I have no idea if it would stand up in court, or what limits
are placed on detaining you. It may be that they can only ask you to
hang around, then add on some kind of additional charge if you choose
not to comply, but are later visited by police based on e.g. a license
plate identification.


Maybe they could also identify the perp by the painfully red knuckles
after being soundly thwacked by the librarian's ruler. :P

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Call in Seinfeld's Library Detective!!!