Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

[Geerolla]

sorry, the use of deadly force would hold up in court for simple assault:
rcw 9a.16.020
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

rcw 9a.16.050
(1)...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
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

[FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]finally, not sure the instigator (photographer) can use deadly force against someone they themselves upset, the aggressor (bus employee)

so let's finally put your silly ideas away about shooting the bus employee over simple assault that the photo-idiot instigated in the first place.

ipse

[/FONT]

His mere presence while committing a legal act is what set off the crazed bus driver to attack him. How exactly is that instigation?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[solus]

His mere presence while committing a legal act is what set off the crazed bus driver to attack him. How exactly is that instigation?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

perhaps you didn't watch the same segment of video...

so let me walk up to you gun on hip (you are not a celebrity per se) and start video'g you out of the blue and when you ask why, a re you get a 'i don't have to tell you nah nah nah' type of response...

ya that falls under instigation.

ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

perhaps you didn't watch the same segment of video...

so let me walk up to you gun on hip (you are not a celebrity per se) and start video'g you out of the blue and when you ask why, a re you get a 'i don't have to tell you nah nah nah' type of response...

ya that falls under instigation.

ipse

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but that is not instigating at all. As I said before if you don't want to be videoed taped, stay home. Every time you step into your bank, auto store, grocery store you ARE being video taped. If you are talking to a LEO, you are being recorded. I personally would have no problem with it as long as the person did not invade my space. I saw no where that the cameraman got to close to the public agent. In fact it was the other way around.

On top of that, almost everybody on this forum advises to record while OCING, he was just using better equipment than I use. And yes you were recorded when we ate lunch. That was the pen in my shirt pocket, but I did delete it when I got home, as I always do unless an incident happens. Do you believe I was trying to instigate you?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

perhaps you didn't watch the same segment of video...

so let me walk up to you gun on hip (you are not a celebrity per se) and start video'g you out of the blue and when you ask why, a re you get a 'i don't have to tell you nah nah nah' type of response...

ya that falls under instigation.

ipse

Ok, concede a bus driver is not a celebrity and not worthy of Stalkerazzi treatment.

But how about government employees, while on the job?
http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/MetroTransit/Jobs/DriveForMetro/JobDescription.aspx

Sometimes it is REALLY good to video public employees, bus drivers included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTbxLTXCPYU

http://mynorthwest.com/76/2380693/Are-bus-drivers-in-the-Puget-Sound-area-getting-worse

 

[Freedom1Man]

sorry, the use of deadly force would not hold up in court for simple assault:
rcw 9a.16.020
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

rcw 9a.16.050
(1)...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
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

finally, not sure the instigator (photographer) can use deadly force against someone they themselves upset, the aggressor (bus employee)

so let's finally put your silly ideas away about shooting the bus employee over simple assault that the photo-idiot instigated in the first place.

ipse

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[/u] 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.

[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

Did you not see the injures that the victim sustained?

Homicide would have been legal in my book.

It sounds like you're looking for an excuse to engage in violence against anyone with a camera.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[notalawyer]

perhaps you didn't watch the same segment of video...

so let me walk up to you gun on hip (you are not a celebrity per se) and start video'g you out of the blue and when you ask why, a re you get a 'i don't have to tell you nah nah nah' type of response...

ya that falls under instigation.

ipse

I'm pretty sure it's you who was watching a different video clip. Your 'instigator' was talking to the guy in the car who, after refusing to identify himself, drove away. Your 'instigator then started walking towards the sidewalk, when the bus driver asked why he was filming (still quite some distance away) and then within about 5 seconds became extremely aggressive and assaulted (using Florida definition of that crime "You take my picture, I'll lay you out you son of a bitch") the cameraman, followed by battery. :uhoh:

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I'm pretty sure it's you who was watching a different video clip. Your 'instigator' was talking to the guy in the car who, after refusing to identify himself, drove away. Your 'instigator then started walking towards the sidewalk, when the bus driver asked why he was filming (still quite some distance away) and then within about 5 seconds became extremely aggressive and assaulted (using Florida definition of that crime "You take my picture, I'll lay you out you son of a bitch") the cameraman, followed by battery. :uhoh:

An aggressive verbal and physical attack like that may or may not put a person in fear of great bodily harm. The threat "I'll lay you out you son of a bitch" is threatening to hit someone so hard they go down or are knocked out is in fact threatening to use deadly force. It is entirely reasonable to be in fear of great bodily harm or death at that point IMHO because the attacker appears to have the ability. If it was a 98 pound 85 year old grand mother my opinion would be different.

 

[Citizen]

Anybody remember Leonard Embody? If I recall, he OC'd a cap-and-ball revolver in his hand in (Tennessee?), and on another occasion I think an AR pistol with an orange flash suppressor.

I no longer recall much about the details of this police encounters.

I do recall a surprising number of members on this forum saying a variety of negative things about him, including that he was the south end of a northbound donkey.

My position was: rights are rights are rights are rights!

 

[notalawyer]

An aggressive verbal and physical attack like that may or may not put a person in fear of great bodily harm. The threat "I'll lay you out you son of a bitch" is threatening to hit someone so hard they go down or are knocked out is in fact threatening to use deadly force. It is entirely reasonable to be in fear of great bodily harm or death at that point IMHO because the attacker appears to have the ability. If it was a 98 pound 85 year old grand mother my opinion would be different.

Thanks, but that was not my point. He called the cameraman the 'instigator' when it was clearly that the bus drive was the criminal.

As for deadly force (again, speaking about Florida law) neither simple assault or simple battery (which is can be seen in the video) would justify a deadly force response.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP As for deadly force (again, speaking about Florida law) neither simple assault or simple battery (which is can be seen in the video) would justify a deadly force response.

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.

 

[Grim_Night]

As for deadly force (again, speaking about Florida law) neither simple assault or simple battery (which is can be seen in the video) would justify a deadly force response.

Did I miss something? Las I checked, this was the WASHINGTON State subforums not Florida. I think I'm missing something important here.

 

[Grim_Night]

And just to put this into context as to exactly how full of bovine poo this entire issue is...

IF the camera person had assaulted the "bus driver" it would have been a felony.

RCW 9a.36.031 Assault in the third degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first or second degree:

(b) Assaults a person employed as a transit operator or driver, the immediate supervisor of a transit operator or driver, a mechanic, or a security officer, by a public or private transit company or a contracted transit service provider, while that person is performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(2) Assault in the third degree is a class C felony.

But because the "Bus driver" is the one that did the assaulting, it is only an assault in the forth degree which is a gross misdemeanor.

So you see, the Bus driver seems to be an animal that is treated better then the rest of us because as some may understand, here in Washington State, the use of lethal force is justified when resisting a violent felony such as say, assault in the third degree.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP IF the camera person had assaulted the "bus driver" it would have been a felony. But because the "Bus driver" is the one that did the assaulting, it is only an assault in the forth degree which is a gross misdemeanor.

So you see, the Bus driver seems to be an animal that is treated better then the rest of us because as some may understand, here in Washington State, the use of lethal force is justified when resisting a violent felony such as say, assault in the third degree.

Oh, ho, ho! Thank you for pointing that out!

On the other hand, it should come as no surprise. Government already thinks it is enough "more equal" than the rest of us to justify ruling another equal without his express individual consent. So, it should come as no surprise when government thinks one of its agents is "more equal" than others, and an assault on his "more equalness" deserves a harsher penalty.

Nope. No surprise there. Just proof they don't consider themselves our equals, much less our servants.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Thanks, but that was not my point. He called the cameraman the 'instigator' when it was clearly that the bus drive was the criminal.

As for deadly force (again, speaking about Florida law) neither simple assault or simple battery (which is can be seen in the video) would justify a deadly force response.

Florida law does not apply in Washington, Simple assault and simple battery are not what determines if the use of deadly force is justified. In Washington if a reasonable man would be in fear of great bodily harm or death the use of deadly force is justified. The bus driver threatened great bodily harm and appeared to be capable of inflicting great bodily harm, in that case deadly force would be justified.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

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.

+1 the ability to carry out the threat would be a huge factor.

 

[solus]

Did you not see the injures that the victim sustained?

Homicide would have been legal in my book.

It sounds like you're looking for an excuse to engage in violence against anyone with a camera.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

simple assault... pure and simple...

ipse

 

[solus]

Florida law does not apply in Washington, Simple assault and simple battery are not what determines if the use of deadly force is justified. In Washington if a reasonable man would be in fear of great bodily harm or death the use of deadly force is justified. The bus driver threatened great bodily harm and appeared to be capable of inflicting great bodily harm, in that case deadly force would be justified.

do you have a cite for that statement as the RCW i cited and quoted didn't state it that way.

ipse

 

[Difdi]

so let's finally put your silly ideas away about shooting the bus employee over simple assault that the photo-idiot instigated in the first place.

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

Thanks, but that was not my point. He called the cameraman the 'instigator' when it was clearly that the bus drive was the criminal.

As for deadly force (again, speaking about Florida law) neither simple assault or simple battery (which is can be seen in the video) would justify a deadly force response.

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.

 

[Freedom1Man]

simple assault... pure and simple...

ipse

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

 

[davidmcbeth]

His mere presence while committing a legal act is what set off the crazed bus driver to attack him. How exactly is that instigation?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

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?