• 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.

Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Sorry, not that simple.

If someone is brazen enough to attack an openly armed citizen then, it is reasonable to believe that the attacker has the ability to carry out a deadly attack. Since the ability to carry out an attack warrants the use of lethal force in self defense, the camera man would have been justified in the use of deadly force in this case.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


and perhaps, just perhaps, the individual who was being aggressively photographed by the belligerent man with the holstered gun felt threatened and got the first strike in?

whom by the way has the better ability to carry out a deadly attack ~ barefisted individual or the stupid bloke with a camera and a gun?

rights being rights...common courtesy coupled with polite communication skills goes a long way to preclude these kinda BS situation(s).

ipse
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
and perhaps, just perhaps, the individual who was being aggressively photographed by the belligerent man with the holstered gun felt threatened and got the first strike in?

whom by the way has the better ability to carry out a deadly attack ~ barefisted individual or the stupid bloke with a camera and a gun?

rights being rights...common courtesy coupled with polite communication skills goes a long way to preclude these kinda BS situation(s).

ipse
So, an openly carried handgun is a threat, by your standards?
I am confused, I thought that this forum was supposed to help promote OC and other lawful activities. I never once heard the camera man issue any threats. Also you advocate attacking anyone who might be a threat just to get the first punch in? Do you work for the DOD or something? That sounds like it came straight out of a DOD play book. "We must strike __________________ first because they have _____________________ weapons."

What you seem to be advocating is neither peaceful nor lawful/legal. That would seem like a forum rules violation.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Holy cow !!!

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-2023.pdf

You might like to read this case ^^^ gov't official instigating a violation ... did not work out well for the gov't official in this case.

Gov't officials baiting people to violating the law?


Thanks for this very informative and at times entertaining piece.
I'm guessing this is just another isolated instance of an ego maniac.

I cannot understand how this type of behavior went on for so long.


~Whitney
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
So, an openly carried handgun is a threat, by your standards?
I am confused, I thought that this forum was supposed to help promote OC and other lawful activities. I never once heard the camera man issue any threats. Also you advocate attacking anyone who might be a threat just to get the first punch in? Do you work for the DOD or something? That sounds like it came straight out of a DOD play book. "We must strike __________________ first because they have _____________________ weapons."

What you seem to be advocating is neither peaceful nor lawful/legal. That would seem like a forum rules violation.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

my response to this situation has been previously stated.

personally i find your loose association of even considering a different understanding to the event that has you in a tizzy yet is leading you to offer up some type disassociated dod play book is quite bizarre.

tell you what, tell me where to find you over a couple hour period and i or others or multiple will approach out of nowhere with camera in hand, gun on hip, and when you ask what the bloody sam hill i'm doing recording you and your activities, i will belligerently say 'cuz i can'. say when you were coming from court ~ would that have been a good time to get in your face?

finally, yes, from many many citizen's perspective across this country, an openly carried handgun is a threat and one of the reasons members OC to provide an acclimation as well as provide knowledge if allowed.

as stated...cordial communicative interaction would seem to be lacking in this exchange.

ipse
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Thanks for this very informative and at times entertaining piece.
I'm guessing this is just another isolated instance of an ego maniac.

I cannot understand how this type of behavior went on for so long.

~Whitney

unfortunately, this kind of behaviour is the norm for NM's nice LE ~ ABQ PD is under federal oversight due to extreme violence against NM citizens from LE hands. the NM state police have also exhibited extreme violence against citizens, both NM & other state's.

ipse
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Just like exercising a constitutional right and peacefully obeying the law don't generate probable cause, they don't pose a threat either. Since they do not pose a threat, they cannot justify self-defense in opposition to them, which leaves a physical attack on someone for doing nothing illegal being a crime. You're mistaken, what the bus driver did was not simple (fourth degree) assault, since the attempt at an eye gouge makes it second degree assault. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021

You're correct that simple battery doesn't justify deadly force self defense in Florida, but that was not simple battery. It was aggravated battery as soon as the bus driver attempted to inflict permanent disability. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.045.html

But that's Florida. We're talking about Washington, where the specific term for such a thing is Assault in the second degree, which is a class B felony.

quit trying to gouge out my eye...quit it now, see its on film, now why did you do that, quit...

ya...attempted...simple assault is the result.

ipse
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
do you have a cite for that statement as the RCW i cited and quoted didn't state it that way.

ipse

Hitting someone hard enough to lay them out could very easily also kill them or otherwise cause permanent damage. The threat was clear the person making the threat clearly had the ability to carry out the threat. Actually he should have been arrested for making the even making the threat and likely may be in the near future.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

6A.04.080 Threats to do harm.
(1) A person is guilty of threats to do harm if:

(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:

(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and

(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.

(2) Threats to do harm is a gross misdemeanor.

(3) For the purposes of this provision, “words or conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.

(4) The penalty provided in this provision shall not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.


RCW definition of Grave bodily harm (c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I'm less sure.

First, let me say that I am late to the party, and have not seen the video.

With that said, if the bus driver said, "I am going to lay you out" as represented in a post above, then I would argue lethal force would have been justified, for the same reasons posted above--it is a threat of grave bodily injury. People suffer broken eye sockets, brain damage, impaired sight (impairment of organ function), and so forth from such assaults that "lay them out". In fact, I would go further. I would hold that once laid out, I have no reason to think the enraged attacker, having laid me out and caused whatever grave bodily injury that accompanied being laid out, will stop there. That is to say, I have no reason to think he will stop there. I have no assurance he will not, giving vent to his rage, give vent to the full depth of his rage, and continue to kick me in the head, stomp my groin, kick me in the ribs, etc. Rhetorical question: Am I really supposed to accept and believe my attacker--in a rage--is in possession of his faculties enough to stop once I'm down, or that he--in his rage--can and will modulate his force?

However, convincing a jury is a different matter entirely.

One is not required to wait to be harmed before one can defend themselves. The bus driver made his intentions very clear and there was no reason to think he was joking around. Just like the time a guy walked up to me in a bar and said I am going to kick your ass when the Cops got there to clean up the mess he told them all he did was threaten me and I hit him, he went to jail I had another beer and nursed a sore hand.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Perhaps "apprehend a Design" From the RCW needs translated. Apprehend a design means to stop a plan, in plain English the RCW permits deadly force to be used to stop a plan to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer. In this case the plan was to hit him hard enough to knock him out the RCW clearly states homicide is justified to prevent being hit or other wise assaulted hard enough to knock that person out. I do not know about you but it would take a lot of force to knock me out or down. Keep in mind the bus driver did not say I am gonna punch you in the nose or I am gonna slap you silly, he was very clear in the amount of force he was threatening to use.

Now would I have shot the bus driver under those circumstances, absolutely not, If I was an 80 year old man in frail health oh hell yes.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Actually, I would argue that "apprehend" in this context does not mean to arrest, stop, take into custody, etc., but rather to perceive or understand.

cf. my dictionary:

apprehend |ˌapriˈhend|
verb [ with obj. ]
1 arrest (someone) for a crime: a warrant was issued but he has not been apprehended.
2 understand or perceive: great art invites us to apprehend beauty.
• archaic anticipate (something) with uneasiness or fear.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
solus said:
"... aggressively photographed..."
Aggressive photography?
Sounds like:

  • aggressive watching
  • aggressive smelling
  • aggressive breathing
  • aggressive listening
  • aggressive being

OMG, I just watched the video, I didn't realize how aggressive the photographer was! Imagine my shock when he said such horrid things such as "What's going on, man" in a friendly voice and "Have a good day".

Honestly, I think this all happened because the photographer didn't offer to help that confused old man who was fumbling for his radio for most of the first minute. If he'd done that I don't think any of this would have happened.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
tell you what, tell me where to find you over a couple hour period and i or others or multiple will approach out of nowhere with camera in hand, gun on hip, and when you ask what the bloody sam hill i'm doing recording you and your activities, i will belligerently say 'cuz i can'. say when you were coming from court ~ would that have been a good time to get in your face?
I'm trying hard to follow that, but I'm still too sober.
But as none of that is what happened (at least according to recorded evidence) I really don't give two shakes. Argue the facts, not some made up 'what if' story.

But, if you absolutely insist on an answer... No. It doesn't matter if I was coming from court or from my mistress' bedroom, or wherever. Mr Walrus 'stache shouldn't have 'gotten in the photographer's face' and he should not have threatened to 'lay him out'. He ('stache) instigated the last incident with the photographer.

ipsi doodle
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I'm trying hard to follow that, but I'm still too sober.
But as none of that is what happened (at least according to recorded evidence) I really don't give two shakes. Argue the facts, not some made up 'what if' story.

But, if you absolutely insist on an answer... No. It doesn't matter if I was coming from court or from my mistress' bedroom, or wherever. The confused old man shouldn't have 'gotten in the photographer's face' and he should not have threatened to 'lay him out'.

ipsi doodle
Thank you

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Actually, I would argue that "apprehend" in this context does not mean to arrest, stop, take into custody, etc., but rather to perceive or understand.

cf. my dictionary:

Same result either way, Understanding his plan to lay you out does not change the outcome.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
Here's something to think about... What if the person being filmed was a police officer? What if the person being filmed was a employed by the fire department? How bout if the person being filmed was a member of the city council.

I'm fairly sure that regardless of the variables in the facts, the person doing the filming, did nothing illegal. No matter the person that was being filmed, the person being filmed violated the law and assaulted someone both verbally and physically. THAT right there is unacceptable. There is no justification for that anyone at all can use for this situation. Many here would agree that the term "baiting" could be used. And many would also agree that you can't bait someone into doing something criminal that is not inclined to do such criminal acts. I can leave my car unlocked all day long, and only the criminal that is going to steal my car will actually steal my car. Did I force the person to steal my car?

No matter what the person doing the filming did, as long as he did it legally, the bus driver was not forced to commit the assault. He did it of his own free will. End of story. If you don't agree with what the one doing the filming said, tough. He was within his rights to do such. The bus driver however was not within his rights to threaten the person filming with bodily harm and sure as h3ll was not within his rights to charge and then physically assault the person filming encounter.

Argument over.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'm less sure.

First, let me say that I am late to the party, and have not seen the video.

With that said, if the bus driver said, "I am going to lay you out" as represented in a post above, then I would argue lethal force would have been justified, for the same reasons posted above--it is a threat of grave bodily injury.

Well, here you go (and for the benefit of others who claim to have watched the video, yet still claim the videographer somehow deserved it):

After the encounter with the supervisor, the videographer (V) starts directly back to the sidewalk. A man (M) who is not in any distinguishable uniform covers his face and says, "Why you taking pictures?"

V: "Why am I taking pictures?"
M: "Yup!"
V: "I'm not, I'm taking video."
M: (Striding deliberately towards videographer) "If you take my picture, I'll f**king lay you out, you son of a b*tch!"
V: "You'll lay me out?"
M: "Yeah, you betcha! Now get the hell away from me, punk!" (as he continues to move into V's face)
V: "Get out of my face. You better get out of my face, man!" (as he continues to walk backwards away from M)

And then there's an overlapping dialogue of "You're a real tough guy!" "No, you're a real tough guy!", then "Get out of my face, get out of my face!" as M bows up and charges with his fists up, grabs and throws the camera (1 of 2, since the video continues), and physically batters V.

There is an allegation that V spit on M, but we do not see that, nor any evidence of it. And if it happened, it happened while M was already aggressively advancing on V.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Well, here you go (and for the benefit of others who claim to have watched the video, yet still claim the videographer somehow deserved it):

After the encounter with the supervisor, the videographer (V) starts directly back to the sidewalk. A man (M) who is not in any distinguishable uniform covers his face and says, "Why you taking pictures?"

V: "Why am I taking pictures?"
M: "Yup!"
V: "I'm not, I'm taking video."
M: (Striding deliberately towards videographer) "If you take my picture, I'll f**king lay you out, you son of a b*tch!"
V: "You'll lay me out?"
M: "Yeah, you betcha! Now get the hell away from me, punk!" (as he continues to move into V's face)
V: "Get out of my face. You better get out of my face, man!" (as he continues to walk backwards away from M)

And then there's an overlapping dialogue of "You're a real tough guy!" "No, you're a real tough guy!", then "Get out of my face, get out of my face!" as M bows up and charges with his fists up, grabs and throws the camera (1 of 2, since the video continues), and physically batters V.

There is an allegation that V spit on M, but we do not see that, nor any evidence of it. And if it happened, it happened while M was already aggressively advancing on V.

q: why are your video'g me
photographer answer: I DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS....repeated numerous times.

so the photographer is setting the stage with belligerent response to a reasonably asked question.

i noticed supervisor walked / drove away while the photographer continued to put the camera in his face as well walking up to the vehicle and recorded right up to the vehicle's window.

second gentleman transcript is essentially correct as described above but the photographer's response is smart arsed in tone.

photographer's taunting of get out of my face repeated ~ even when the other bloke's back is towards the photographer.

sticking his tongue out is defiantly a tactically assault maneuver gentleman's hands are not in a defensive posture...

then if you listen you hear the PSSSSSS which i perceive is the photographer spit'g as the gentleman's shirt is wet and the gentleman is now in boxer stance.

and you now have one tremendously upset gentleman all the while being chased the photographer is screaming for the camera's sake...get out of my face - get out of my face....interestingly even tho the gentleman isn't near him!!!

then the photographer starts with the the gouged eye mantra...which could be punches while holding a camera to get the best angle.

interestingly the transit company was volunteered info he was photographing for a PROJECT yet cannot articulate that to those he is photographing?

no, photographer was instigator gun not withstanding...

ipse
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
q: why are your video'g me
photographer answer: I DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS....repeated numerous times.

so the photographer is setting the stage with belligerent response to a reasonably asked question.

i noticed supervisor walked / drove away while the photographer continued to put the camera in his face as well walking up to the vehicle and recorded right up to the vehicle's window.

second gentleman transcript is essentially correct as described above but the photographer's response is smart arsed in tone.

photographer's taunting of get out of my face repeated ~ even when the other bloke's back is towards the photographer.

sticking his tongue out is defiantly a tactically assault maneuver gentleman's hands are not in a defensive posture...

then if you listen you hear the PSSSSSS which i perceive is the photographer spit'g as the gentleman's shirt is wet and the gentleman is now in boxer stance.

and you now have one tremendously upset gentleman all the while being chased the photographer is screaming for the camera's sake...get out of my face - get out of my face....interestingly even tho the gentleman isn't near him!!!

then the photographer starts with the the gouged eye mantra...which could be punches while holding a camera to get the best angle.

interestingly the transit company was volunteered info he was photographing for a PROJECT yet cannot articulate that to those he is photographing?

no, photographer was instigator gun not withstanding...

ipse
You have yet to articulate how the camerama was the aggressor.

Your argument would give police legitimate reason to kill people filming in public.

The guy in the car had zero business asking for information. The guy in the car had every responsibility to answer the question (he is or was a public servant).

The other guy attacked the camera man causing him to spit coffee he had just sipped onto his attacker. Even the police said that the cameraman was perfectly legal and that the bus driver (attacker) assaulted the camerman on security video.

I believe that the cameraman had every right to use deadly force to stop the attacker, permanently.

I am starting to believe that you might be a government plant, a troll, and/or an idiot.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
Top