WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

1.0K

They act like the video doesn't exist.

They act like the video doesn't exist.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

The guard tore Sewell's shirt, but notice how both men go to the ground at one point. The shirt could have been torn at any point after the exchange began. The question is: who initiated the assault?

I pointed to the fact that there is no video evidence that the guard assaulted the cameraman. Let's be charitable and say the guard became frustrated and put a hand on the shoulder of the cameraman to begin 'directing him' toward the door. That's not out of the question. But we can't jump to the conclusion that the guard threw a punch at the cameraman. Whether what the guard actually did (which we cannot see) rises to the level of assault or not, it's not within Sewell's rights to begin attacking the guard if what the guard did was put his hands on the cameraman. Let's also acknowledge that when we are dealing with a security guard, whose job it is to keep an environment secure, there might be a little latitude given to him (especially if he has a clean professional record) not to assault people, but forgiving him if he places his open hand on someone's shoulder for instance.

Whatever went on between the guard and the cameraman, Sewell wasn't the one threatened here, and if Sewell threw the first punch at the guard, he's wrong.

Listen, I understand the frustration over this. The first time I watched the video I was frustrated as well. But step back from it a little ways and consider what's actually going on here. The security guard is paid to do what he did here. He doesn't want to. Nobody wants to deal with this shit. It's his job. On top of having to jump in and deal with two instigators that nobody else wants to deal with, he gets called a fucking monkey on top of everything else.

These guys were trespassing, and when the security guard tried to escort them out of the building (which he did at first through verbal commands), the cameraman called him a monkey and <maybe or maybe not> the guard 'assaulted' the cameraman. Either way, does that mean Sewell can come over and start throwing punches? Probably not.

From the standpoint of common sense, Sewell should have known neither of them were going to get away with this unless they could show the guard had literally attacked them (forget the legal definition of assault). It's fairly obvious to me that's not what happened, and so Sewell is going to get fucked over for this. He should have been smart and left the building when he was asked to, and if he'd wanted to escalate this, he should have gone and collected more people to go 'stage a protest'. Attacking a black man on the job is patently retarded in this day and age. I have no sympathy for Sewell in this case.

[–] 0 pt

Again, it's the law, you push someone, you put hands on someone in a threatening manner, and escalation is very possible. Which is why the law against the instigator. When two people fight, it's because neither is willing to back down, but it's also because one person is instigating.

I can see it playing out both ways depending on legal representation. I believe blacky got offened and pushed the camera man and probably made a threatening gesture, the other dude stepped in, probably got shoved as well, and then the guy got cold cocked.

If that is the sequence of events it's self defense, the only charge they can levy will be trespassing. Aside from the tussle it did not escalate and the people left the premises. The only way trespassing can stick is because they stayed despite being told several times to leave private property.

[–] 0 pt

Perhaps, but camera guy did a piss poor job of documenting what needed to be in order to rescue their case. As it stands, unless there is security cam footage from within the lobby of the building, it's going to be the word of the property owners and any witnesses against the two trespassers (let alone two trespassers who hit a black man and called him a monkey). Part of the argument I'm making here has to do with Sewell's complete lack of sense about the optics - we all know by now that we don't live in a world of justice by the book.

[–] 0 pt

Everything you type is a lie. Either that or you spent 100x more time blathering on your keyboard than actually watching the videos.

[–] 0 pt

Perhaps, but camera guy did a piss poor job of documenting what needed to be in order to rescue their case

That's true.

As it stands, unless there is security cam footage from within the lobby of the building, it's going to be the word of the property owners and any witnesses against the two trespassers (let alone two trespassers who hit a black man and called him a monkey). Part of the argument I'm making here has to do with Sewell's complete lack of sense about the optics - we all know by now that we don't live in a world of justice by the book.

That is also true, and it's also true that it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. I don't know if this would even go to a jury trial, as I don't know the law in Aus, but I do know it's a universal that you have a right defend yourself if you're being assaulted.