Security guard beaten at SF Black Rock

[HugeBodBoyle]

Expand Quote

An interesting aspect of the story is that they took him to ER at General Hospital, which has a policy that states they don't accept any type of medical insurance (but that shit ain't free). This allows them to charge whatever they want for services, without being constrained by pre-negotiated deals between insurers and the hospital. This likely made the bill be orders of magnitude higher than it needed to be.

[close]

Jesus, no wonder people jump out of ambulances

AN AMBULANCE? IN THIS ECONOMY?

*leaps*

[Get the strap]

Some skaters writing some positive comments:

https://www.gofundme.com/friends-of-dan-jansen

Anybody know when the trial resumes?

[roba]

fuckin thrasher is donating money to skaters' gofundme projects, i'm hoping they'll donate to dan's as well, i mean gx has a strong thrasher connection so why wouldn't they?

[KRKD1]

Damn fucked for everyone involved. Specially dude just doing his job. Bad look for GX nd Jesse for sure. Self defense clearly a crock of shit in this scenario. You got to have legitimate and justifiable concern for your life, that just ain't whats happening here and you ain't gonna convince no judge or jury otherwise.

But shit dudes idk about California but in Illinois that's mob action and a Felony sentene here. Makes you wonder who all has ended up being charged and or investigated as suspects at the moment. The scenes a bit different out here but if this same scenario happened downtown chi or even in the brubs they'd get all of em up on some serious charges Simply for associating together in the vicinity of dude getting fucked up so badly.

     Sec. 25-1. Mob action.
    (a) A person commits mob action when he or she engages in any of the following:
        (1) the knowing or reckless use of force or violence
    disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law;

 (3) A participant in a mob action that by violence
       inflicts injury to the person or property of another commits a Class 4 felony

[billy.pepperidge]

Fish are breathing a sigh of relief.
Props on Kalis, big drop and it's not his mess.

[Battery Aziz]

Fish are breathing a sigh of relief.
Props on Kalis, big drop and it's not his mess.

Just saw that Kalis donated $500 right now. Good on him

[DannyDee]

fuckin thrasher is donating money to skaters' gofundme projects, i'm hoping they'll donate to dan's as well, i mean gx has a strong thrasher connection so why wouldn't they?

Because I bet Thrasher is scared shitless of their potential liability in a civil case (They promote GX's content, they are executive producers on their projects, it can be argued Gershall was filming for them at the time this happened). You have to think any personal injury lawyer worth anything is going to go after them, because they have way more money than Jesse Vieira.

[DannyDee]

Expand Quote

Fish are breathing a sigh of relief.
Props on Kalis, big drop and it's not his mess.

[close]

Just saw that Kalis donated $500 right now. Good on him

DGKalis proving again why he's one of the best dudes in the industry.

[Chapingro]

DGKalis showing people what the right move is. GX is a bunch of moooaaaarrrrks. Not to mention how they ripped off a latina artists design for their MUNI logo. Wack sauce.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Fish are breathing a sigh of relief.
Props on Kalis, big drop and it's not his mess.

[close]

Just saw that Kalis donated $500 right now. Good on him

[close]

DGKalis proving again why he's one of the best dudes in the industry.

[Alan]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

An interesting aspect of the story is that they took him to ER at General Hospital, which has a policy that states they don't accept any type of medical insurance (but that shit ain't free). This allows them to charge whatever they want for services, without being constrained by pre-negotiated deals between insurers and the hospital. This likely made the bill be orders of magnitude higher than it needed to be.

[close]

Jesus, no wonder people jump out of ambulances

[close]

AN AMBULANCE? IN THIS ECONOMY?

*leaps*

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18137967/er-bills-zuckerberg-san-francisco-general-hospital

Tech will save the world.

[weregoingunion]

DGKalis showing people what the right move is. GX is a bunch of moooaaaarrrrks. Not to mention how they ripped off a latina artists design for their MUNI logo. Wack sauce.

their YAMO stickers too. but seems as though some sort of agreement has happened between cecilia & ryan

[colt cannon lunchbox]

Has everyone started to realise that GX isn't all that cool? I couldn't make it past 5 minutes into their latest video. Hill bombs aren't that exciting... and I've never liked watching people skate house spots.

[hsehylpmis]

I'd love to hear what agreement Ryan and Cecilia came to about the Muni bus ripoff, because that one was pretty wack

[nasalcrilltobackpaddle]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I have gotten shit for this and a few days ago I saw security video footage that showed the guard making the first attack

[close]

I feel the need to clarify what I see as a common misunderstanding. The security role is to guard ( defend ) the property with which your assigned to. If, in doing so, a person (or group of people) physically prevent you from doing so ( moving your barriers ) in an aggressive manner you are legally justified to reflect that level of aggression via the use of force continuum. If you are alone and are working against an assumed group of 7 ( because they were all working in unison as skateboarders ) you are typically justified in making the first "attack" because it's being done defensively by virtue of your role and the circumstances, in this case.

[close]

verbal non-compliance only warrants soft touch(garner vs Tennessee) I had thought he told them to leave, they wouldn’t, they moved barriers and he made first physical contact.

"In practice, however, the Garner case has had less impact on state-level police practices than originally may have been anticipated. This is because Garner, and a subsequent case, Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989), established that the reasonableness of an officer's use of force, whether against a fleeing suspect or otherwise, is to be determined from the perspective of the officer under the circumstances that were apparent to him or her at the time. As the Graham court made clear, this deferential standard prevents most second-guessing of an officer's judgment about use of force. Indeed, it may be that Garner's legacy is not so much one of changing the use of deadly force by police as it is of eliding use of force policies and practices by shifting them from the statutory to the customary."



Maybe you should read the entire wikipedia article next time, dummy

[cynical cow]

I wish I was able to donate more. That's awesome Kalis just dropped $500. I didn't realize the severity of his injury until today when I saw his gofundme. Horrible.

[ShyLow]

Has everyone started to realise that GX isn't all that cool? I couldn't make it past 5 minutes into their latest video. Hill bombs aren't that exciting... and I've never liked watching people skate house spots.

Maybe skateboard videos aren't your thing

[GeorgeCostanza]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Filming homeless people is played out as fuck and pretty exploitative.

[close]

What? While filming street people certainly has the *potential* to be exploitative, it is not inherently so. Skateboarding is a street activity and is intertwined with street culture, of which homeless populations are a huge part of. Pretty much every time I skate in an urban environment I interact with street dwellers...it’s just documenting your environment. Christ, Ocean Howell basically wrote his fucking dissertation on the subject.

In fact I would say most of the time skate videos actually function as one of the only mediums in which homeless populations are provided with any visibility whatsoever. You’re talking about basically the most vulnerable and neglected populations which most people don’t even acknowledge as human, whereas skaters constantly talk, share with, and hang out with them on a regular basis.

[close]

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything against interacting, talking with, or sharing space with homeless people. That's obviously a part of street skateboarding - shit, that's a part of living in any metropolitan environment. However, filming them playing a very particular role (and don't kid yourself, it's always a certain role, and it doesn't do a good job at humanizing them) and putting them in your video without their consent to show how "rough" or "street" your environment is a weak move (not to mention a trite skate video cliche). Huge difference.

[close]

Glad you agree all of those things are a part of street skating. If you’re a good filmer, you’re recording all of them and using them in your edits because they are a part of the story and experience. It’s not hard to do and many people do it well.

I can list off more than a dozen examples of skate videos, multiple by GX even*, in which homeless people are in no way shape or form exploited and are rather portrayed positively and integral to the video itself. You’re a good poster and skate nerd, I’m sure you can think of more than I can.

You made a blanket statement and it’s simply not true. Context is absolutely everything.

*(for the record GX also uses them in exploitative manners as well, volleys being the worst)

[close]

Not only am I willing to bet/argue that the number of instances of exploiting homeless people in skate videos greatly outnumbers the humanizing moments (like when someone sits down and has a conversation with a homeless person, yeah, that’s fine), but more importantly, I can list off plenty of classic street skating videos that didn’t feature a single homeless person or bum for atmospheric purposes. The issue has a lot of grey areas and is obviously not as morally corrupt as the main topic st hand, but sticking a clip of a homeless person in a video is beyond played out. If EE3 and Static II didn’t need any bums to convey a “street” environment, I’m hard-pressed to think of a reason any filmer would.

[close]

I'm guessing you guys have slightly differing definitions of what exploitation entails. It can definitely be a thin line but I think for the most part, simply filming a homeless person when you're out getting clips, especially if they're talking to you, isn't exploiting anyone. It's literally just the reality of whatever area you happening to be skating and filming in that day.

[close]

That and for some reason heckler can’t cop to the fact that he made a huge generalization/blanket statement.

Not arguing that it’s played out or that there are far greater negative examples—of course there are. I’m pointing out your saying that it’s inherently exploitative to film interactions with street people. It’s not. And just because some videos you love didn’t use them, doesn’t negate the fact that plenty have and it’s improved the video.

This is all so off topic now.

[close]

Planman, I actually pointed out the differentiation in intent in bold. And you're right, it depends on your definition of exploitative, but I think it could be argued that filming someone regardless of participation or intent and putting them in your video and not compensating them in some way (not saying compensation doesn't happen) is exploitative.

Mattchew, you're clearly grasping at straws. Not only did you approach me with a faux-academic response to an argument you made up for me, but I outlined and fine-tuned my stance in follow-up posts and you just keep referring to my initial, one sentence comment as if that's all I said on the issue. Yeah, some instances of putting homeless people in skate videos aren't outright exploitative (unless you go by my definition above), but most instances are, and you just keep referring to these "mystery videos" that homeless people have greatly improved. Can't think of one. But, regardless of that, PUTTING HOMELESS PEOPLE IN YOUR VIDEO IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND TRITE AS FUCK. What's next, sticking up for clips of dudes blowing cigarette smoke into the camera? A passionate discussion about the Shake Junt high five?

This is super off-topic and unless you want to start another thread, I won't be continuing this conversation.

fully agree with everything youve said here heckler

[anontechnician]

Hard to let this one go, don’t see a problem with filming street

how is it exploitive

You don’t love the human being with a tongue stickin out dressed in silver?

[Dong Juan]

This was bound to happen. I can't think of a single major video (probably is though) that didn't have b-roll that glorified confrontations. Shit even the Polar video had little Emile in a wrestling match with a security guard twice his size. You could just feel that someone would go to far. I didn't think it be this bad though. I'm shook.

[nopes]

Expand Quote

Hard to let this one go, don’t see a problem with filming street

[close]

how is it exploitive

You don’t love the human being with a tongue stickin out dressed in silver?

you dont think filming down and out people for purposes of entertainment isnt exploitation? assuming the subjects arent granting specific permissions that is.

[Lenny the Fatface]

It's important to stress that violence should only be a last resort form of self defense. I understand the desire to get a full story before casting judgment but we need to separate ourselves from tacky shit like this.

[anontechnician]

Filming is exploitation. Film is medium. Media owned by corps.

A bum snoring on a ledge being ollied at 90mph is being exploited less than the paid skater who lands in traffic. Nobody profiting from that clip interacted or affected that bum in any way, unless it was staged. And film is a pretty good representation of reality, which is why the scene of the dude in red goggles drags. They had to work to get that joint into his hands and to light it. That looks like exploitation. Other clips of theirs don’t. Film is genuine. You decide.

loving this dystopian timeline we’re living in where, for less than a good night at the bar, you can pay professional skateboarders and other d list celebrities to say problematic shit

[cherry]

 

I have gotten shit for this and a few days ago I saw security video footage that showed the guard making the first attack


[/quote]

I feel the need to clarify what I see as a common misunderstanding. The security role is to guard ( defend ) the property with which your assigned to. If, in doing so, a person (or group of people) physically prevent you from doing so ( moving your barriers ) in an aggressive manner you are legally justified to reflect that level of aggression via the use of force continuum. If you are alone and are working against an assumed group of 7 ( because they were all working in unison as skateboarders ) you are typically justified in making the first "attack" because it's being done defensively by virtue of your role and the circumstances, in this case.
[/quote]


verbal non-compliance only warrants soft touch(garner vs Tennessee) I had thought he told them to leave, they wouldn’t, they moved barriers and he made first physical contact.

[/quote]

"In practice, however, the Garner case has had less impact on state-level police practices than originally may have been anticipated. This is because Garner, and a subsequent case, Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989), established that the reasonableness of an officer's use of force, whether against a fleeing suspect or otherwise, is to be determined from the perspective of the officer under the circumstances that were apparent to him or her at the time. As the Graham court made clear, this deferential standard prevents most second-guessing of an officer's judgment about use of force. Indeed, it may be that Garner's legacy is not so much one of changing the use of deadly force by police as it is of eliding use of force policies and practices by shifting them from the statutory to the customary."



Maybe you should read the entire wikipedia article next time, dummy
[/quote]

Did u read into the subsequent case? I read about it here http://www.aepscorp.com/lesson/lesson-5-use-of-force-1/

When I clicked the graham case reference it lead me to garner.
Either way they are the earliest cases of excessive force and are used in determining the scales security guards use to assess threats. Thanks for insulting me for trying to learn hope u feel better about yourself

[cherry]

Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html

[cherry]

Prouse, supra, at 659. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion. And while the meaningful threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, 9 the presently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments [471 U.S. 1, 11]   in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects.

if you’re skateboarding and security initiates physical force theyve broken the law. Scratching a curb isn’t a felony crime. Obviously swinging your board is deadly force I’m not sticking up for them

[thebaggy]

if you’re skateboarding and security initiates physical force theyve broken the law. Scratching a curb isn’t a felony crime. Obviously swinging your board is deadly force I’m not sticking up for them

   This is untrue. You are applying case law pertaining to the use of deadly force (by Security or Police) to a different situation. You are comparing apples to oranges.
   
   

[nasalcrilltobackpaddle]

Prouse, supra, at 659. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion. And while the meaningful threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, 9 the presently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments [471 U.S. 1, 11]   in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects.

if you’re skateboarding and security initiates physical force theyve broken the law. Scratching a curb isn’t a felony crime. Obviously swinging your board is deadly force I’m not sticking up for them

Goddammit, this just confirms my theory that the average skateboarder is a fucking moron. I can't believe you read all of that and still don't get it. Security CAN initiate physical contact as long as they are responding to non-compliance, meaning if you refuse to leave the premises and keep skating, the security guard is justified in using physical force to stop you. Furthermore, if you are non-compliant AND threatening to the security guard (from the guards perspective, evaluated using the reasonableness test) the guard is then cleared to use more aggressive contact, pepper spray, batons, etc to defend themselves.

Basically, there is no way that a court will find the guard at fault in this case.

Also, your reading comprehension needs work.

[thebaggy]

Expand Quote

Prouse, supra, at 659. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion. And while the meaningful threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, 9 the presently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments [471 U.S. 1, 11]   in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects.

if you’re skateboarding and security initiates physical force theyve broken the law. Scratching a curb isn’t a felony crime. Obviously swinging your board is deadly force I’m not sticking up for them

[close]

Goddammit, this just confirms my theory that the average skateboarder is a fucking moron. I can't believe you read all of that and still don't get it. Security CAN initiate physical contact as long as they are responding to non-compliance, meaning if you refuse to leave the premises and keep skating, the security guard is justified in using physical force to stop you. Furthermore, if you are non-compliant AND threatening to the security guard (from the guards perspective, evaluated using the reasonableness test) the guard is then cleared to use more aggressive contact, pepper spray, batons, etc to defend themselves.

Basically, there is no way that a court will find the guard at fault in this case.

Also, your reading comprehension needs work.

No sense in being mean, suppose this dudes genuinely trying to learn this ish.

[oldgoodburger]

RE:”ripping off artists”... it’s appropriation.

[cherry]

Your reading comprehension needs work because I literally said a hundred times I’m not sticking up for them. The first video looked like the guard lunged off the fucking ledge at them to me fuck off witb attacking me personally guards can’t just beat the shit out of someone For skating and literally the exact code of conduct depends on what state u are in