• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Details at dinner tonight, and later on for all the correspondents at sea.

Basics are: 1) motion to dismiss did not fly as there just was not enough to show that someone specific was responsible for ether a) saving the video or b) preventing the video from no longer being available. 2) The complainant was in apprehension of some harm but the defendant did nothing to, for, with, about a gun to make the complainant feel the apprehension he felt.

NOT GUILTY as the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both elements of the crime were present.
Thanks for your brief summary. That is the nugget that we've all been waiting for until User can fill in the meat.

I have been thinking about this for a long time, but ultimately did not get around to writing it down until now.

This case was vitally important to win, not only for Skidmark personally, but for all of us.

Note the bold above. If the prosecution had won this case, (and winning this round wouldn't have really counted, they would have to prevail all the way up as high until our money ran out...) the precedent that would be set is unconscionable. The resulting case law would be changed such that any person, whether an "authority" or not, could just state that any gun carrier made a gesture which, coupled with the fact that they were carrying a gun, was sufficient to cause them to "apprehend" harm. Such an outcome could virtually outlaw the open carry of firearms in any location where anyone happened to not like it, and was willing to bring charges against gun carriers.

The fact that all indications in this case clearly pointed to the fact that the state destroyed (or at the very least allowed to be lost) exonerating evidence would have made a loss even more drastic.

From the other perspective, this case was also monumentally important. I suspect Mr. Poindexter is going to lose quite a bit of sleep starting this evening. His career should be over, and I would bet top dollar he is wishing like crazy he could get back that offer to drop charges in exchange for no civil litigation.

The corrupt, crony-filled justice system of Surry County has failed you Mr. Poindexter. Perhaps for the first time in your life, you know what it feels like to see that real justice has prevailed.

TFred
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Expunge the falsehoods?

Thanks for your brief summary. That is the nugget that we've all been waiting for until User can fill in the meat.

I have been thinking about this for a long time, but ultimately did not get around to writing it down until now.

This case was vitally important to win, not only for Skidmark personally, but for all of us.

The corrupt, crony-filled justice system of Surry County has failed you Mr. Poindexter. Perhaps for the first time in your life, you know what it feels like to see that real justice has prevailed.
TFred

At the very least, a motion for expungement -- with Surry paying for it -- would be justice. Assuming such motion were granted.
 

kaiheitai17

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
619
Location
Islamabad, Pakistan
Congrats to Skid and User, I'm glad you won but I'm sorry that you ever had to go through this. No one should ever have to suffer this kind of insult.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
At the very least, a motion for expungement -- with Surry paying for it -- would be justice. Assuming such motion were granted.

There's nothing to expunge. There's nothing I'd want expunged. They brought some charges. One was dismissed with prejudice, and I was found Not Guilty of the other. Those are the facts and there is no reason to try to/want to wipe them off the record.

Gotta go get ready for dnner.

stay safe.
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
Congrats Skid

Wish I could have been there today and have dinner with you tonight. Alas work has kept me tied to the shore.
You all have a good time I will still be there in spirit.
:banana:
 

jnojr

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
42
Location
Reston, VA
Civil lawsuit against guard and employer for damages relating? Swear out a warrant for false arrest and filing a false report?

I know, I know... someone "acting on behalf of the state" won't ever be called into question, the court doesn't want to risk having people unwilling to file charges, etc. But please consider a civil suit?

Anyway, I'm glad you were exonerated here.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
yahoo!!!

:banana: :monkey :banana: :monkey
I'm sure the dinner tonight will be a jubilant affair.
Wish I lived closer so I could help you celebrate.
Deep breaths, regroup, consider the potential 1983 case.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
Was there, but I had some work to do in Richmond and worked till after 7......

.... so I skipped dinner. Would be happy to fill in any details I recall. I took pretty good notes. As mentioned, it was exhausting, and Surry House having new hours (no breakfast ) did not help.

Mr. Poindexter did try to play the race card. You better have damn good proof when calling someone racist. He had little or none. I guess by calling Skid a racist, he was implying a contribution to the Security Supervisors "fear". He tried to paint Skid as very scary. No jury to play to so don't quite know why he went there.

Skid and Tfred make the important point about the charge. The judge said Skidmark DID contribute to apprehension or fear in the complainant with his actions (not leaving the area immediately, parking where he did, and arguing/complaining about his treatment by security staff). But with no clear reference to the gun, brandishing could not be proven. The judge even said "arguing while carrying a holstered gun does not constitute brandishing" (close to quote, my notes are still in the car). I agree with TFred that this ruling was EXTREMELY important to all of us who OC. Not precedent setting at this level of court, however.
I think if the ruling had gone the other way and been appealed, the State would have a helluva time answering why the security tape was unavailable or destroyed. Apparently, the incident was poorly documented by Securiguard and VDOT internally, other than the "external" police complaint. The interal incident reports were wanting and did not support the brandishing charge.

ETA: Congrats Skid and User on the outcome of the case. Skid, nice the way you handled Mr. P. when he tried to get you to call his witnesses liars. Skid said "they may not be lying, but their version is not what happened"! LOL
 
Last edited:

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Yipeeeeeeeee!

This is for skid:banana:


This is for Mr. P :p


and this is probaby what Mr. P is doing tonight:cry:


Congrat's to skid & user for a job well done.
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Congrats Skidmark, wish I could have come down but a job interview came up. Great work User, we are apparently very fortunate to have your sevices available.

I can't help but wonder why the judge let this go to trial, it seemed impossible for the state to prove its case. I would love to hear User's comments on why it even went to trial.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
The details for this trial are going to be presented and debated for a long time to come. Thankfully, much of the information in the sealed files was used. Because of that I'll be able to show much of it that I was wondering about how I would work and him.

There is a ton more that will discuss in future weeks and months.

Everyone involved is too tired right now to post a lot about yesterday. But while it's fresh in my mind, what little mind I have left right now, I'd like to add little bit about the other heroes of the day.
Of course Dan deserves the lion's share of credit. But others that were there literally from Dawn throughout the day and into the night at the dinner, deserve credit, and a lot of it.

Grapeshot, refused to disarm. He spent the entire day outside watching the camera gear, while I moved in and out of the courtroom. It was hot, there was nothing going to drink and never several times that I was extremely worried about him. But he stayed the course.

Sidestreet, had been up all night working and came straight to Surry County. To be honest, he looked like death warmed over. But as tired as he was he still came to dinner and drank a toast to skidmark.

Several members came from northern Virginia. It's hard to keep straight but I believe I met Felix and of course it Ed was there and even spoke Poindexter at some length after the trial.

the American nightmare, as much as I like to make fun of him about a short pants, has been every one of these hearings, occasionally straining his relationship with his boss. Nevertheless he's there every time.

RiverRat, who normally very even tempered and mild-mannered, had some questions for Poindexter and cornered him and his car and got answers while I videoed.

I'm too tired right now to list all the members that were there to support. But I can take they made a difference. It's my understanding that the attorney for securiguard is afraid they'll be armed men demonstrating around him.
Of course that's ridiculous but it does show that skidmarks support has not gone unnoticed.

I wanted to mention this before got lost in the shuffle and I'm sure others will start filling in the details later this morning.

dictated using Dragon speak and I'm too tired to correct the errors right now
 
Last edited:

USNA69

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
375
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Congrats Skidmark, wish I could have come down but a job interview came up. Great work User, we are apparently very fortunate to have your sevices available.

I can't help but wonder why the judge let this go to trial, it seemed impossible for the state to prove its case. I would love to hear User's comments on why it even went to trial.

The judge certainly knew that the Commonwealth's case was flimsy, at best. Perhaps he let it go to trial in order to provide him the opportunity to issue a public smackdown to the CA in the form of the "Not Guilty" verdict.
Had he simply dismissed it, the CA gets a pass for his shameful behavior in the entire matter.
Just a theory ...
 
Top