60 votes

Mall Cop Goes Berserk Trying to Prevent Photos Being Taken of Accident

A security guard for an Ohio shopping mall [Ohio Valley Mall in St. Clairsville] made a complete fool of herself as she tried to prevent people from taking photos of a truck that ended up in a ravine on mall property.

Officer Adams, as she describes herself in the above video, first threatened to confiscate cameras, then ordered people to delete their photos and finally ended up pushing a woman who immediately fought back.

The two women ended up punching and kicking each other on the street as onlookers calmly observed, including one who video recorded the debacle.


http://youtu.be/fSwvgXeDh4Y

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/05/18/ohio-mall-secur...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

am i missing something?

this woman is not a law enforcement officer, she's a minimum wage employee in a shirt that doesn't even fit. she has no legal right to confiscate anyone's personal property and if she had managed to get those cuffs on someone, she'd probably be looking at a felony. whether she was right or wrong in her assertions of trespassing, her job is not to enforce the law and she should have contacted the authorities. the simple fact that she didn't implies that she knew she wasn't on defensible ground.

now choosing to swing on somebody while unarmed and surrounded by unfriendlies? that's just dumb.

You Are Missing Everything

The security guard had a right to make a citizen's arrest since she witnessed a crime trespassing. She was justified in handcuffing the woman. She can enforce laws if she witnesses the crime and can use handcuff to arrest someone especially someone who just assaulted her. She is not obligated to contact authorities and neither are you. If you witness a crime you can act and make a citizen's arrest and then call the authorities after within a reasonable time.

I guess she was out of bounds

by just a little since they apparently fired her

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

yes

She acted unprofessionally by loosing her temper and screaming and taking the situation to the level she did. Trespassing someone for taking pictures is ridiculous, however property owners and security have the RIGHT to do so. My argument was she was within her RIGHT to do what she did not that she should have done it.

If you stand on a corner with a sign saying something offensive I would defend your RIGHT to do it but will not agree that you SHOULD do it.

i think this is great!

i get the notion that a lot of people are spouting here: "this is terrible, two women fighting while the men look on" but keep in mind that these weren't girly girls. they were two tough broads going at it. that woman looked like she was a biker chick. they're adults and it was a fair fight. besides who knows you might get arrested for interfering with the mall cop? i'm happy that woman fought back and im happy the men let her. she had the right to defend herself. it's not like it went on for that long anyway or anyone got seriously hurt. it's better than most people who would just obey and let that cop be so disrespectful and continue her power trip.

and also, a mall is a public space, are you telling me that no one goes into that mall with a camera ever? that's an absurd rule

You Need To Brush Up On You Understanding Of Property Rights

Since its essential for freedom.
A mall is PRIVATE PROPERTY and property owners have the RIGHT to establish rules. The owners and their agents (security) have a right to ask you to leave property for any reason including failure to follow rules regardless if you think the rule is absurd.

It was not SELF DEFENSE.
a property owner or security has a right to ask you to leave property. If you refuse they have the RIGHT to use reasonable amount of force to make you leave property. The "biker woman" was told to leave and refused. She was committing the crime of TRESPASSING. The security guard had a right to use force (place hands on her and make her leave) or make a citizens arrest. The "biker woman" did not have the right to use force to prevent the security from removing her from property. You are not justified in using force to commit a crime (trespassing) and it is not self defense it is assault.

The security guard acting like a jerk by screaming does not justify not complying and trespassing.

People on here really need to understand property rights since the same rights apply to you and your home/property.

Actually dutk0004,

They were not in the mall, they were on the road and the road is connected to the public road, and the city gives citizens a right to ingress and egress to the mall from the public road back home or wherever you want to go.

While the mall owns the road, they have to give you egress off their property and can not stop you in any way.

You can pull over, you can even stop and talk for short periods, could you park there, camp there etc., the answer is no.

If your property is landlocked by another person's property the law gives you the right to egress and ingress by law, even though it's someone else's property. This is no different, but if it had been in the actual mall they could remove you from the property.

In addition, the mall cop can not citizen arrest her for trespassing, because the woman wasn't trespassing, it's egress out of the mall. If it was a private road and they had no trespassing signs up and if she actually followed the steps then it might be a possibility.

What the dipstick mall cop did was assault, she pushed the woman .

That applys to roads coming

That applys to roads coming from your land where their is no alternative route. If my cabin is surrounded by someone's land and their is no route out of my land without passing through theirs I can travel on their private road. In this case the mall is in the center of a town surrounded by public roads. No one has to travel on this road to get to where they are going. fail

eh, it is probably more

eh, it is probably more complicated than that. a mall is a commercial space open to the public. not a private residence. they were also outside on a road, and it seems like they were looking away from the mall. if that rule exists, i really doubt it gets enforced (ppl have cameras and camera phones all the time in malls by me), which would mean they are selectively enforcing it here, which sounds discriminatory. also why did she rough house that one woman and not the others? that seems like unequal treatment. besides she wasnt just screaming for them to leave, she was threatening to steal their cameras. anyway, her violence did not serve her purpose, it wasn't like she was on the border of the property and she just pushed her to get her off her property. i understand your argument, and i can see how the security guard could have legally been in the right, but i disagree that the lady was not justified in fighting back. clearly there was a dispute, they didnt feel like they were trespassing. the cop initiated force, she took the risk of getting hit back.

You Sound More Like A Liberal Than a Libertarian

with all the discrimination, unequal treatment garbage.

It is NOT more complicated than that. Private property is owned by people, public property is owned by the government. You really need to educate yourself on this, it is important subject pertaining to RIGHTS and FREEDOM and applies to you. Roads can also be private property if it is on private land which this is.

I'm going to ignore your claims of discrimination because that is garbage.

The Security Guard as an agent for the property owner has the RIGHT to use force to make someone leave their property. This is NOT a matter of opinion. It is the law and a RIGHT. You are not justified to use force to commit a crime (biker woman), also not a matter of opinion. The law states a property owner or their representative (security) only has to tell you leave private land. Refusal to leave is trespassing (a crime). It does not matter if you don't feel like you are trespassing, you are if you do not leave when told to do so.

The security guard had a RIGHT to initiate reasonable force to make the woman leave. The biker woman does not have a RIGHT to hit back. It's assault.

Seriously educate yourself on these laws, they are important for a free person.

you make many good points,

you make many good points, especially the trespassing one, and i don't completely disagree with you. but it just isn't that black and white.

you can have privately owned space that is open to the public. when you open it to the public, there are certain expectations and standards that come with that. especially if it's a commercial space used to make money. i'm guessing they have a particular contract with the town with stricter standards for which they are accountable. it's not the same as a private residence. when you wear a badge, and are security-- you also expected to act a civilly and professionally. she is not an ordinary woman trying to get people off her lawn.

she didnt use force to get her off the land. she just simply used force. that force in no way facilitated removing the biker woman from the property. the security guard in no way attempted to escort the woman off the property. she just assaulted her. what she did was undignified, unnecessary and aggressive. when people act that way dont complain when someone hits back even if you are in the "right." besides i'm guessing this mall was established based on ordinance with the town and/or state. im sure there is some clause in the rule book or in the contract that established the mall that all people be treated equally, she singled that woman out. that is discriminating against her.

and lastly, these people are photographing an accident, that i'm sure will cost taxpayers money somehow. they are documenting an event by taking photos. the public has the right to do that.

Their is No Difference

I am very familiar with property laws, their is no difference between residence and commercial property, both are private property and the same rights apply. You can't just make things up to justify your wrong argument. The mall was within their rights to make a rule against photography. The guard was doing her job by asking them to leave for breaking the property's rule and their refusal was criminal. I will admit her behavior was ridiculous and had she handled it better the altercation could have been avoided but she was acting within her rights.

Security did use force to get her off the land but the biker woman assaulted her immediately. The Guard then was acting in self-defense not the biker woman. Taking hold of someone to remove them from property is REASONABLE force. The woman then reacted by grabbing her by the throat. Security then had the right to escalate the level of force to protect herself and control the subject.

"when people act that way dont complain when someone hits back even if you are in the 'right'."

- are you justifying assault because she acted like a jerk? Not a very libertarian position to take...

Property right, use of force laws, know them, love them because you may need them someday.

alright so i guess we are

alright so i guess we are going in circles here..

but i still think you are wrong. there are rules that apply to commercial places that don't to private residences, eg racial discrimination, sanitation regulations etc. this cannot be denied. a big commercial mall has to be approved by city council. there can be specified requirements or prohibitions within that contract. also, what about all the stores in the mall, would Macys or Old Navy approve of such behavior towards their customers?

hypothetical: if a mall banned visitors from wearing blue tshirts but never really enforced it, until one day one mall cop decided to enforce it on a group of people standing outdoors and then out of that group of people chose one woman to push and shove, do you think that woman being shoved is really the guilty party here? because you know people have used cameras in that mall before and nothing happened.

as for the sentence you quoted, what i meant was that violence should only be used when necessary. and that one shouldn't go hitting another human being and then be surprised if he hit back. i didnt mean it necessarily in political terms.

Yes their are regulations for

Yes their are regulations for commercial property but none that apply in this situation. You cannot ban people from your property for race, religion, gender. That is all. Making a rule against photography is NOT discrimination or against any City Ordinance.

For your hypothetical situation: The woman was not grabbed or shoved for taking pictures. Security grabbed hold of the woman because she was trespassing and was going to be removed from property. The difference from what happened and your hypothetical situation is one a RULE was broken the other a CRIME was committed and rights were violated.

3 comments from a police website..

all in favor that the mall cop should be removed.

http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/6241011-mall-cop-fights-...

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

When Did Our Contempt for Authority Trump Property Rights?

The mall was private property and the security guard told these people to leave. They were all committing the crime of TRESPASSING by not leaving immediately. The guard had a right to use reasonable force to make them leave property and she did. The "biker woman" committed assault. You can not use force to stop someone from removing you from their property.
Property Rights are fundamental for FREEDOM and no one has the right to refuse to leave private property when asked to do so. It is discouraging how few people on here know or respect property rights.

The Security Guard could have handled this situation better but was within her rights

No kidding!

She wasn't a cop enforcing arbitrary rules on public space. She was on private space and she asked them to leave as a representative of the owner.

She mishandled it sure, but this is clear cut. They were indeed trespassing once they were asked to leave.

Libertarians and anarchists need to be very clear on this. If you go into someone's house you obey their rules even if they are being a ahhsole. Complain, don't go back, whatever but if you're asked to leave by the owner or his representative then LEAVE.

Note to mall cops (if you want to look professional)....

... make sure your shirts sleeves are the right length, because otherwise you'll look like a freakin' moron. LOL

She got what she deserved for assaulting the lady bystander.

=====================================

"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009

Nice to see Americans

Nice to see Americans starting to stick up for each other these days. Soon it will be like this;

Riot Police get their Asses Kicked by Soccer Fans

oh my gosh

I showed this vid to my nephew just this morning and said.. "we need to start doing that!"

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

TwelveOhOne's picture

Similar adrenaline rush a day and a half later

Not quite as strong as watching the UFC-style beatdown, but still -- four men assaulting and battering someone who was not threatening anyone, just running with a banner. They should rightly lose their jobs. One of them was unconscious as a result of his actions. Consequences, blow-back, whatever you call it, actions of tyranny WILL BE RESPONDED TO.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Reminiscent of Reno 911

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370194/

An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/

Or was that Super Troopers

Farva's sister.

Seems we are divided as a community on this issue.

I absolutely stand with those who say that intervention by "real men" or frankly anybody to take responsibility was absolutely called for and appropriate.

I stand with those who are ashamed of our countrymen for not taking responsibility. Where is the supportive law on this subject? Well there's piles of it but basically that behavior is beneath the standards that many of us find acceptable. Here we had a uniformed officer clashing and getting overwhelmed in the middle of a freaking street, cars going by, that stupidity had to stop before somebody got hurt.

Massive props to the guy that drove by, stopped his car, got out and handled the situation delicately. And I don't see what the argument is here. We are supposed to be the proactive people, we are supposed to take initiative and responsibility in our own communities and we are supposed to intervene when the shibbit getteth too deepeth. And this because IT'S JUST WHO WE ARE. Or who I thought we are. Or who I'd like us to be.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Agreed.

I think some of these posts about police tend to lean heavily against them, which I tend to understand.

Could this lady have been more professional in her order to leave the PRIVATE PROPERTY of the mall? Absolutely.

Then again, we aren't looking at the Mall as your house. If you ask someone to leave there should be no questions asked right? This comes down to respect of others. The security guard appeared to be having a bad day, doesn't change the fact that she was hired to protect the owners property and enforce the rules of said property.

I would never shove someone to get them to cooperate unless such force was being threatened on me. Then again, how would you react to people that refused to leave your property after being told and warned that escalation was eminent?

Let's use our heads and remember what we stand for. Don't adopt the left/right paradigm to form your opinions (Dems vs. Reps, cops vs. citizens, us vs. them.), instead be ever vigilant and fall on the right side of the principles.

If you learn nothing else from this video remember that we need to respect each other and be the better men and women. Not because we have to but because we are all in this struggle together whether we see it or not. Fighting with "the help" is fighting with ourselves.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

deacon's picture

proactively?

what would your actions/reactions be in the same scenario?
if you were the one on the receiving end of a security guard
would you make nice after being assaulted by one of them?
would you just take it and say ""i am a Ron Paul supporter?
i bet if the shoe was on the other foot,you would defend yourself
and act just as the woman did to the guard
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

The Biker Woman Was Not Assaulted

You can not use force when being removed from property when you are trespassing. In other words force is not justifiable when committing a crime. The Security Guard had the right to use reasonable force to remove a person who is trespassing from private property. The Security Guard had the right to use force the "biker woman" did not.

deacon's picture

what crime?

it is against mall policy to take pictures,of what,the mall?
the property being filmed wasn't mall property
the mall cop broke the law when she placed her hands on the other first
i don't know,it looked like a road way to me,but i am unfamiliar with that area,it could have been the parking lot.
my main point about this was to smudge,to see how he would have handled it,seeing he is/was a guard
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

trespassing

The mall had the rule against photography (for whatever reason) and the guard explained to the people it was against their rules. The people continued to take photographs and the guard asked them to leave. The crime they committed was trespassing by not leaving. The guard, as an agent for the the property owners, had the right to ask them to leave and had the right to place hands on them to remove them from property after they refused.
Taking this incident to the level she did was a poor choice but the guard was within her rights to do so. It is not against the law to place hands on someone to remove them from property when they refuse. It is a crime to use force against someone using reasonable force to remove you from property as long as they have the authority and you are refusing to leave.