During an announcement within the last half hour, a Richland County Sheriff’s Office spokesman just admitted that the security guard, who shot his weapon during a confrontation involving Ohio Cop Blocker Mike Skidmore, intentionally shot (presumably) at Mike. Originally, it had been reported that the shot was an accident. Mike had been attending a Richland County Commissioners Meeting yesterday morning (July 9th) when the incident took place.
After Mike and others in attendance objected to the meeting being made private, he reportedly tried to photograph nametag of one of the court employees, which had been purposely obscured to prevent observers from recording her identity. As a result, other employees called the security guards into the meeting room. They then targeted Mike for arrest and, during what was described by police as a “scuffle,” one of the security guards drew his gun. Shortly after, the shot was fired. Fortunately, the bullet didn’t hit anyone within the crowded room, but instead, hit a wall.
Via “NewsNet5” from Mansfield, Ohio:
The Richland County Sheriff’s Office is now saying a shot fired inside the commissioner’s board room Thursday was intentional, not accidental as previously reported.
The Richland County Sheriff’s said they received a call at 9:44 Thursday morning that a gun had discharged in Richland County Commissioner’s office.
According to Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon, a fight broke out when the county commissioners began the closed section of their weekly meeting and asked everyone to leave the room.
The Mansfield News Journal reports Mike Skidmore became upset when asked to leave. He asked the clerk if he could take a picture of her nametag, grabbing her shoulder and turning the tag around.
A struggle ensued when the commissioners called security guards to remove Skidmore from the room.
A witness told authorities that it seemed accidental. However, the sheriff’s office later learned the gunshot was fired purposely.
Two security guards were taken to MedCentral Health System with injuries.
Skidmore is now facing felonious assault charges.
An investigation is ongoing.
At the time, Mike was completely unarmed and according to witnesses was not resisting. That and the fact that this incident took place within a crowded room makes this most recent development troubling, to say the least. Frankly, this gets a little more crazy with each new bit of information that comes out.
Once again, we ask that you call and/or email to ask what the situation is with Mike Skidmore and to put pressure on them to release him and his camera equipment with all video intact and drop any charges against him:
Richland County Sheriff
597 Park Avenue E.
Mansfield, Ohio 44905
Richland County Courthouse
50 Park Avenue E.
Mansfield Ohio 44902
Linda H. Frary, Clerk of Courts
And as before, stay tuned for updates as they become available!
Kelly is a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who’s been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He’s also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes.
Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Ah…..according to witnesses.
According to other witnesses he assaulted the clerk and then both security guards.
Which of course justifies firing a gun in a crowded room. Let’s think, he assaulted (is that unwanted touching or break face assault), so shoot. No matter where the bullet goes, he assaulted so shoot.
I don’t know if it does or not. I wasn’t there. I was simply pointing out there there are opposing witness statements than those listed here.
There always are conflicting statements. But unless the assault rose to life or death, firing a gun is all sorts of stupid. That’s where the focus should be, because, again, unless the assault rose to life or death, that gun should never have been fired. The person that fired that gun committed a worse crime.
It may have been life-or-death. Subsequent stories have reported that he went a little “Hannibal Lecter” in there.
Yeah, bites do hurt but are you sure he didn’t just suck on a tooth and say “chianti”? Remember it was a crowded room, firing a gun in that situation is “my life, the rest be damned”.
Check out the video and his Facebook messages leading up to it, Skidmore wanted a fight and he got one. The guards don’t seem that well-trained, but they did what they had to do.
I looked at the video, read the text a ways back. The guard pulled his gun and shot at 2:23, about 8 seconds in. The second guard engaged just as the shot was fired. The women in the room started moving away from the fight, and then they all did a duck and cover when the idiot fired his gun. Any Hannibal Lector may have been once the wrestling started.
I’ll stand by “my life, the rest be damned”. He was firing towards the rest of the people in the room while managing to miss the guy right in front of him. Maybe it was just the shame in being taken down by a greybeard. He had backup, he should have waited and taken the punishment over shooting. He had backup, backup which took Skidmore down. And he then did what? Not a damn thing of meaning until 3:00, 27 seconds of the other guy wrestling Skidmore. He did take time to rearrange his wristwatch.
I’m ashamed of the second guard for taking 8 seconds to finally join and all the other males who did nothing at all. Finally, Skidmore escalated it with the first punch, further escalated it going back at the first guard, and then that first guard took it to the stratosphere firing his weapon. He had backup.
No guy…I saw that you had seen the video awhile back.
I hadn’t. I just saw it and it took me seconds to see that the officer was violently attacked for no reason. I saw the another one of your “I can’t breath” guys…clearly could…even though his legs were being held down in sharp contrast to the testimony from the coroner in the Kelly Thomas said would happen.
Again….the reasonable man fled from you.
Well then you have trouble with your vision. I only looked at it from mobooz’s link.
The security guard was attacked after grabbing the camera. He was violently attacked by Skidmore, but it was for a reason. I don’t agree with what Skidmore did, just as I don’t agree with an idiot firing a round in a room of people. And he missed the target 1 to 2 feet away.
As for the breathing, I’ll let you go on your way with your willfully selective ignorance. I’ll put it on the calloused, dehumanized cop you’ve become, or the person you always were. No telling which.
That you can’t understand the simplest concept of “insufficient ventilation”, something every asthmatic, everyone with COPD, and someone with 15 or more stone on their chest does, I can only give it to how calloused and dehumanized you are. It serves you, but exposes you.
I saw the videos
W O W !!!
Enjoy prison you restarted old fool.
Heck…at his age he might die before he gets out. In sure his grandkids will be so happy and proud.
After watching the video…
You’re a fucking idiot
Meaningless. You made an ad hominem. That’s all you did, but you thought you were making an adult comment.
Look at the video again, when he fired the gun he could have just as easily shot this backup as Skidmore. In fact, he missed both and then we have the other people in the room. Maybe it was a warning shot, he just didn’t want to shoot anyone on the floor above so it hit a wall? I like how he spent 27 seconds checking himself, and preening, while his backup was wrestling Skidmore.
Be honest, while you were watching the video you shut your brain off just in case it challenged what you wrote before. Come on, you’re a brave, manly cop, you can actually admit to it without losing your testicles.
See what I did to your ad hominem?
Edit: And just for fun, guy, how you doing on that “if they can speak, they can breath” from that cop graduate MD training? I noticed another group of cops just in the last week or so ignored it until they found the guy stopped breathing. Obviously it was from excited delirium, not “I can’t breath”. I keep bringing this up hoping it will save one life from your or your crew’s ignorance (do you guys have like these special handsigns to prove the ignorance?). There’s a reason why that ER physician used the phrase “insufficient ventilation”, granted he didn’t have that cop graduate MD training. It just gets better and better.
“Could have done lots of things. “Could have” bought his attacker an ice cream cone.
Question is is it reasonable to believe that he feared being over powered and seriously injured or killed?
From the look n his face….I’d say he thought exactly that.
Now…I absolutely know that the concept of reasonableness completely escapes your grasp..
I’m fine on it. If you’d listen this idiot says the same thing even though no one is anywhere near stopping him from breathing….other than holding down his legs like your buddy the coroner says stops your breathing. And you’ve already said you believe her.
Of course he could have because he missed and hit a wall. He fired when his backup was right next to Skidmore. He couldn’t hit a guy right in front of him.
“Question is is it reasonable to believe that he feared being over powered and seriously injured or killed? From the look n his face….I’d say he thought exactly that.” Yes, but that’s the problem with giving people the right to kill because of what they feel. It’s why cops fired at two Asian women in a pickup. they were afraid and likely had the same expression on their faces as they fired as he did, I neglected the piss flowing down their pants.
You do realize you made the same kind of argument the liberals you despise make? It’s all about feelings. And feelings are justification, even proof.
There’s a double standard about “I feared for my safety”.
“I’m fine on it. If you’d listen this idiot says the same thing even
though no one is anywhere near stopping him from breathing….other than
holding down his legs like your buddy the coroner says stops your
breathing. And you’ve already said you believe her.” And fuck you for being such a dishonest ass upholding the defining standard of your profession by continuing to lie. I believe what she said, not the lie you tried to make. I believe what the ER physician said about “insufficient ventilation” because I have the experience of 4 people in my immediate family, and I actually read trying to better understand it. I recognize the lie you and your crew try to make with “if you can speak, you can breath”; I shouldn’t call it a lie because it’s the hubris of the marginally educated control-freaks that have to be right, but once you’ve been shown, it becomes a lie.
As for Skidmore, maybe he couldn’t breath at the time. This has three forks: Lying; true at the time but those reasonable people that believe “if you can speak, you can breath” stopped too soon; and the third where those reasonable people actually kill someone that said “I can’t breath” but knew as reasonable people that “if you can speak, you can breath”. Try getting up to 20th Century medical understanding, let alone 21st, rather than sticking to the 19th Century.
BTW, you just continue to lie. If you’d like I’ll post the actual quotes from Singhania and that ER physician you liked over broken ribs but not “insufficient ventilation” (pretty much pulmonary 101 except for cops who are authorities on everything). I’ll even add your quotes. I saved them. How much of a fool and liar do you want exposed?
Were you there?
Do you know what happened?
N O P E
There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there. Yet that has never stopped you from giving kudos to the cops involved even though you don’t know what happened. Nor has it stopped you from weaving assumptions into “that must be what happened” over cop or non-cop actions. Don’t be so transparent.
“A witness told authorities that it seemed accidental. However, the
sheriff’s office later learned the gunshot was fired purposely.” The only evidence in the article that anyone had a gun was “security”. So you think it’s a good idea to fire a gun in a crowded room? Notice, the round hit a wall. Obviously, if that was intended, good shot. If not, the round could have hit anywhere (walls are these big vertical plains that enclose rooms, if you miss what you shoot at it will likely hit a wall if it doesn’t hit anything in between).
“There hasn’t been an article written here”
Umm…then what are you commenting on you goof?
And then…get this….your REFER TO THE ARTICLE !!!!!
Oh my but your dumb hurts the rest of us.
Let’s S L O W it down for you again:
• I wasn’t there
• Some witnesses say his hands were up and he did nothing basically
• Some witnesses say he assaulted the clerk and went nuts on security by punching and even biting one of them on the face.
So again…where you there? I wasn’t. I’m just pointing out that witnesses say lots of things.
I’m thrown back to a few months ago in Baltimore when Fox News was live on scene and a police apprehension took place….and a witness swore over and over that the police shot a guy “in da back”….when nothing like that happened.
You of course can’t discriminate. You but whatever ever this dolts sell you.
“There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” That’s what I wrote, and that is substantially different from what you thought you could use as a “got’cha”. Do you ever think that you take so little time to read something that you really don’t understand it even superficially? This is one of those glaring times that should give you pause to look at yourself.
Didn’t read a damn word of yours after that, you gave me no reason to do so.
“There hasn’t been an article written here”
Then what are you still,commenting about you goof?
Put down the wine bottle and read what YOU wrote you freaking goofball.
“There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” Dumb guy, read what I wrote, quit trying to claim it’s what you keep saying. People are watching, if you had any integrity you’d be one of them. if you had any shame, or any sense of guilt, you’d stop.
I keep quoting what I wrote yet you refuse to admit you didn’t understand a sentence with two commas. Doubling down on dumb is just you being twice as stupid.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, I actually go back and read the thread. I read the article if I feel it necessary. I then comment. The only way to turn this “”There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” into this “There hasn’t been an article written here”
Then what are you still,commenting about you goof?” is to be stupid, dishonest, or lazy, not realizing lazy pushes you into stupid.
Really, t., people can read the thread. You aren’t fooling anyone. Anyone can see the difference between “There hasn’t been an article written here” and “There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.”, and how you lack integrity and honesty. Really, you’re helping the people here that say cops lie all the time.
“There hasn’t been an article written here”
Ummm….scroll to the top o’da page there home slice.
And ummmm….I ain’t trying to “fool anyone”. I don’t need to.
“There hasn’t been an article written here”….accept for the one at the top of the page.
You are the idiot supreme
“There hasn’t been an article written here”
Ummm….scroll to the top o’da page there home slice.”
“There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” and that to your “Were you there?”. Anyone here can do a control-f for the phrases to see how you lie. What are you accomplishing other than to make every adult here feel embarrassment for you, and shame that they let it go on? I keep trying to stop you if only to leave you with some shred of integrity.
The only thing you are doing is showing how some cops are prone to lie, repeat the lie, and hope they get to the ones that don’t look. You aren’t showing cops have honesty and integrity by your example. You’re only feeding the ones that say “pigs lie”, and you’re unfailingly giving them proof.
Really, just stop. I’m beginning to feel embarrassed over your lack of integrity, and I hate feeling anything for an inveterate liar.
“There hasn’t been an article written here”….accept for the one at the top of the page.” Just even more embarrassing when the quote is this “There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” over your “Were you there?”
I’ll quote the entire thread if that will make you stop this embarrassment.. Please stop on your own accord. Let it go.
The video doesn’t lie numbnuts it shows the grandfather being attacked and if the local prosecutor had any intestinal fortitude he would file attempted murder and felonious assault charges and unlawful discharge with brandishing on the gunman too.
Actually, it shows the guard trying to take the camera away. The physical attack was all Skidmore until that idiot fired his gun. Then what Skidmore did was subsumed by that idiot. When he fired he was out of control. He’s lucky it hit a wall rather than his backup or the other people in the line of fire. He certainly wasn’t aiming at Skidmore.
Two different issues. If you want to talk about the gun shot, then yes, it was uncalled for and very dangerous. Had anyone been hit, the rent a cop would be in hot water and still may be.
But Skidmore wanted a confrontation as indicated by his posts previous to the incident, he did assault the lady by grabbing her shoulder and turning her (does not matter if anyone here thinks it is minor, he had no business touching her and then justifying his behavior by stating the guards do it too), he assaulted the guard, and so on. He is yet another loon that pushed the boundaries then wants everyone to feel sorry for him. His wrong actions preceded the gun shot so his actions will be punished separate from the gun shot. He deserves warrants for his behavior and the guard deserves warrants for firing the gun. Neither of the parties should get away with their separate behavior because of how the other acted.
“Neither of the parties should get away with their separate behavior because of how the other acted.” That was my point over a couple of comments, but you put it much more concisely.
False. You are very misinformed.
After seeing the video…might be able to go with sexual assault as he’s righ up on her boobs.
I guess it’s you that “misinformed”
You come across as having an obsession. You certainly did not see the video/ audio that I watched on PINAC.
The guy is a fucking nut. He needs to be locked up. His criminal record is almost as long as Ademo’s
If you’re talking about the security guard who attempted murder then I agree with you. But I know you’re not. You fucking filthy piece of shit.
Read the story next time before you commit to stupid.
He’s the fucking nut? Now grabbing the clerk was criminal, no debate there. But I’d call a guard, former cop or whatever, who discharges a gun like that the real fucking nut. Seriously, lots of them, one of him, unarmed and not particularly physically dangerous. There was no need for the gun.
Get your fucking priorities straight. That cop endangered a lot of people because he was eager to kill someone.
“Lots of them”. 2 is a lot?
“Fortunately, the bullet didn’t hit anyone within the crowded room, but instead, hit a wall.” I think crowded constitutes more than two, but I understand you cops are befuddled by math. You know, the main reason you became a cop. Too stupid to do something worthwhile.
Yeah, he always tries to spin it to avoid thinking about the responsibility of anyone other than the one he’s going after, and that is never anyone in authority.. Me, I think a crowded room has more than two people, I also think it has enough bodies to take down one guy without firing a shot. American cops (I realize these were “security”, but he still does the knee-jerk defend) are just trigger-happy. Shoot solves everything.
Reading comprehend much?
N O P E
2 officers. Not many.
D O P E
Wasn’t talking just about the cops. Obviously, I have a higher opinion of American males not badged than you do. Maybe it’s the military service you never had.
The problem is that in your typical dumb rush to try and show you’re smart….you didn’t follow or comprehend the discussion.
There’s a delicious irony here.
“There hasn’t been an article written here”
Umm…then what are you commenting on you goof?…” But you were quoting this from me “There hasn’t been an article written here, other than a phony one you wrote if you have, where you have actually been there.” That was my response to your “Were you there?”. Followed with the reminder of all your assumptions and smug certainty of your conclusions over an event where you weren’t there.
The irony is this: you make a dumb rush so often that it disqualifies you from making the judgment on anyone else unless you know you’re doing a dumb rush, and then that would raise the question of the quality of your character, your intelligence, or both.
Trust me, brother, the only one that’s worried about my intelligence is you, the only one that keeps showing my intelligence is you by comparison. Frankly, when I go back to look at my comments I realize I could have done better and should have.. When I look at your replies I realize I would only be casting pearls…
Hey, it’s a great comic strip.
Wow. Reading comprehend much?
N O P E
Shawn was saying there were lots of officers. There were only the 2.
D O P E
Nobody in the room “grabbed a clerk”.
Grabbed her chest, it appears. In the words of so many of his defenders, “watch the video.”
You are a fucking nut. Your idiocy reflects on all copsuckers.
You do realize he had no former record, he is a former Marine, he worked at a correction facility for 30 years and he has been married for 40 years correct?
He can’t answer a question that has logic and facts involved. What were you thinking?
Who cares? That has nothing to do with what he was doing to get himself into deep trouble.
Every citizen in the Richland County “cares”.
All law enforcement is being watched. This incident he’s been shown all over the nation now. Every citizen in the USA has access to this entire “meeting” now. The escalation by Marilyn John, the assault by an unknown man trying to take the camera from a photographer, the very dangerous firing of a weapon in a crowded room, the ranting and raving by another unidentified man and Gary Utt. All of this for everyone to see. Great publicity !!!! NOT !!!!
If you look below, you’ll notice JC did a pivot from “his criminal record” to “Who cares? That has nothing to do with what he was doing to get himself into deep trouble.” If dirtying fails, try something else. Yet with all of us watching expecting none of us to notice.
Graham gave me all your information. He gave me a file an inch thick. Now I have the goods on you. I’m getting closer. Are you getting ready?
You are very misinformed !!
No, he fought with the officers and he needs to be locked up for a while.
He does need locked up as does the one who fired the gun, but having or not having a criminal record has no bearing on the issue.
So he was such a threat they opened fire, missed, then said ‘Well shit, I missed. I guess we should arrest you. Take ’em away, Boys’.
He probably stopped biting the guard’s face after the first shot. Now, that’s gun control!
I see JC and t are back to troll. Freaking pathetic losers.
Traitors and domestic enemies you mean….
A true disciple of the non-aggression principle. Maybe this’ll learn him to keep his hands to himself.
If he kept his hands to himself any more than he did, he’d have to amputate.
An accusation isn’t automatically true. If the security cameras showed what police claim happened, why are the police refusing to release the recordings?
And bias the jury pool against him? They’re doing him a favor.
So you’re saying that all those times, all over the country, that the police hold a press conference after a high profile arrest and talk about how guilty the guy is — long before he’s even arraigned — is jury tampering?
Jury tampering? Hardly. But lots of cases do get thrown out because of jury bias. Looks like they want to make this one stick. Assaulting court clerks tends to do that to a DA, I guess.
There occured NO “assaulting of court clerks”. Watch the video, and listen to the audio.
Just watched it. He sure as shit did assault that clerk.
On top of that, the Facebook messages prior to the incident suggest that he was planning to provoke security and duke it out. They probably won’t put an old guy like him away forever, but it sure looks like he’s going away for a little while, with a 10-year probation chaser.
Who do you believe to be a”clerk” in the video?
No need for profanity. Remember that there exists a real live video and audio on PINAC. There is also an edited version.
If you mean “unwanted touching”, yes, if you mean bodily harm, no. That’s the funny thing about the word assault, most of us don’t call 911 over something minor like “unwanted touching” unless we warned first and they ignored. Otherwise, so many people tapping me on the shoulder, so many misdemeanors I missed.
Be an adult about it. He leaned on her to take the photo. “He sure as shit did assault that clerk.” is part of the problem here. Suspension of adulthood for making a point. Have you ever tapped anyone on the shoulder, you misdemeanor miscreant? (Don’t take the wording personally, please, it’s over a point about adulthood.)
Actually, no cases get thrown out for a biased jury pool. At worst, the court will either order a bench trial or change venue, It’s nearly impossible for a defense attorney to even get a venue change for jury bias. Both the Aurora Shooter and The Boston Bomber had change of venue requests denied at trial.
All those times.
More like: on those rare occasions
Keystone Cops. Common Sense and t must be involved somehow.
No sorry, we are discussing EPA issues over with the Supreme Court.
No doubt you are discussing it like two clueless idiots.
Seriously? They shot at an un-armed man? W.T.F?
Folks, I made the mistake a while back, of trying to debate an issue with this “jc”. Lesson learned? You’re wasting your time and allowing him to completely hijack your discussions. Ignore him – it’s better for your digestion:-)
Another felony kidnapping by traitors with badges….NO “cause of action”
Let’s Learn the law…
Knowledge is power….
What is a false arrest?
With a reasoned summary at the end….
The BAR has been perverting law all of these years and defrauding all of us….
And remember our inalienable rights never change, they are inherent, so
basic sound reasonable law can never change, nor can their sworn
oaths….to protect the life liberty and pursuit of happiness…
It is the only reason this government was ordained to exist….
Arrest without warrant
Under our system we have repeatedly decided, in accordance with
constitutional principles as construed everywhere, that no arrest can be
made without warrant except in cases of felony, or in cases of breaches
of the Peace committed in the presence of the arresting officer. This
exception, in cases of breaches of the peace, has only been allowed by
reason of the immediate danger to the safety of the community against
crimes of violence. — Yerkes v. Smith, 157 Mich. 557, 122 N.W. 223, 224
(1909), citing: Robison v. Miner, 68 Mich. 549, 557-58, 37 N.W. 21, 25
It is the undoubted right of every person in this
community not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and
if the defendant has been arrested without due process of law, the
indictment against her cannot be sustained…. It has long been
recognized that arrests without warrant are justified in cases of
treason, felony or breach of the peace, in which actual or threatened
violence is an essential element…. — Commonwealth v. Krubeck, 8 Penn.
Dist. Rep. 521, 522 (1899).
It must not be forgotten that there
can be no arrest without due Process of law. An arrest without warrant
has never been lawful, except in those cases where the public security
requires it; and this has only been recognized in felony, and in
breaches of the peace committed in the presence of the officer. — Ex
parte Rhodes, 202 Ala. 68, 79 So. 462, 465; citing, Sarah Way’s Case, 41
Mich. 304, 1 N.W. 1023 (1879), et al. Also cited and affirmed in
Pinkerton v. Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 44 N.W. 579, 583 (1889); State v.
Williams, 45 Ore. 314, 77 Pac. 965, 969, (1904); Adair v. Williams, 24
Ariz. 422, 210 Pac. 853, 856 (1922).
If persons can be
restrained of their liberty, and assaulted and imprisoned, under such
circumstances, without complaint or warrant, then there is no limit to
the power of a police officer…. Any law which would place the keeping
and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the
peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or
upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and
destroy all the rights which our constitution guaranties. These are
rights which existed long before our constitution, and we have taken
just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental
law of the land. — Pinkerton v. Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 44 N.W. 579,
582-83 (l889); Larson v. Feeney, 196 Mich. 1, 162 N.W. 275, 276-77
Under the common law, acts that are termed malum en se,
in other words wrong or unlawful by their nature, are felonies or
breaches of the peace, and subject to arrest without warrant. However
that is not the law for acts termed malum prohibitum, being made
unlawful only by statute. The law asserts that for statutory
misdemeanors not amounting to a breach of the peace, there is no
authority in an officer to arrest without a warrant:
Constitutional statements of rights are to be interpreted according to
“the common and statute law of England prior to the emigration of our
ancestors,” and by the law established here before the Constitution was
adopted. “Under the common law the powers of state agents were limited
and the requirements for an arrest warrant was strictly enforced —
United States v. Tarlowski, 305 F. Supp. 112, 116 (1969)
already been decided that no arrest can be lawfully made without
warrant, except in the cases existing at common law before our
constitution was adopted. — People v. Swift, 59 Mich. 529, 26 N.W. 694,
[I]t is a serious thing to arrest a citizen, and it
is a more serious thing to search his person and it must be done in
conformity to the laws of the land.
At common law arrests for
misdemeanors were not permissible without a warrant except for acts
committed in the presence of the officer causing a breach of the peace.
— Allen v. State, 183 Wis.323, 197 N.W. 808, 810, 811 (1924).
At the common law an officer had no authority to make an arrest for a
misdemeanor though committed in his presence unless it involved a breach
of the peace…. The right of personal liberty is a very high
prerogative right, and to deprive one of that right, without due process
of law, we must find specific authority for doing so. It can not be
left to inference or some strained construction of statute or ordinance.
— State v. Lutz, 85 W.Va. 330; 101 S.E. 434, 43 (1919).
limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well
defined at common law…. To prevent the escape of a felon, he had
authority to arrest anyone whom he reasonably suspected to have been
engaged in the perpetration of a felony. To prevent breaches of the
peace, he had the right to arrest any person who was engaged in or in
his presence threatened to engage in’ an affray or other breach of the
peace. Beyond this, the law did not allow him to exercise the function
of determining whether there was a sufficient case of the violation of a
law to justify an arrest. — in Newark v. Murphy (1878) 40 N.J.L. 145.
That law permitted an officer to arrest without a warrant on
reasonable suspicion based on his knowledge that a felony had been
committed…. In all other cases, except in the case of a misdemeanor
amounting to a breach of the peace committed in his presence, an officer
had no authority, at common law, to arrest without a warrant…. —
Kominsky v. Durand, 64 R.I 387, 12 Atl.2d 652, 654 (1940).
legal principle underlying this case and the one to be applied to the
facts is firmly embodied in the roots of the common law, which has been
handed down to us from early times unimpaired, in its full vigor, for
the Protection of personal liberty, against illegal arrests. The liberty
of the person is too important a matter to the state to be interfered
with without the safeguards with which the law guards such invasions.
This court has said: The limits to the power of arrest by a constable,
without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for liberty
of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a
mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the
subject, of his own volition, except in those cases when the interests
of the public absolutely demanded it. — Collins v. Cody, 95 N.J. Law
65, 113 Atl. 709, 710 (1920).
An arrest without warrant has
never been lawful except in those cases where the public security
requires it; and this has only been recognized in felony, and in
breaches of the peace committed in the presence of the officer.” —
Stittgen v. Rundle, (1898), 99 Wis. 78, 80, 74 N.W. 536; Gunderson v.
Stuebing (1905), 125 Wis. 173, 104 N.W. 149.
(In the Gunderson
case, the court explains that arrests without warrants were allowed at
common law “only where the ends of justice would be defeated without
it,” and that it “must be confined to cases of strict public
The requirements for a lawful arrest and the
exceptions to a warrantless arrest are found in Tiedeman’s Treatise on
the Limitations of Police Power (1886) § 33:
What constitutes a lawful arrest. —
As a general proposition, no one can make a lawful arrest for a crime,
except an officer who has a warrant issued by a court or magistrate
having the competent authority.
Arrests without a warrant. —
Although it is the general rule of law that there can be no arrest
without a warrant of the nature just described, yet there are cases in
which the requirement of a warrant would so obstruct the effectual
enforcement of the laws, that the ends of justice would be defeated. For
public reasons, therefore, in a few cases the personal security of the
citizen is subjected to the further liability of being arrested by a
police officer or private individual without warrant. But the right thus
to arrest without a warrant must be confined to the cases of strict
public necessity. The cases are few in number, and may be stated as
1. When a felony is being committed, an arrest may be made without warrant to prevent any further violation of the law.
2. When the felony has been committed, and the officer or private
individual is justified, by the facts within his knowledge, in believing
that the person arrested has committed the crime.
3. All breaches of the peace, in assaults and batteries, affrays, riots, etc., for the purpose of restoring order immediately.
Wow. You went a long way to miss the simple point about a “breach of the peace”
They breach our peace unlawfully ALL OF THE TIME….
Law is simple folks, not complicated like the liaryers frauding and scamming us out of our money, try to sell you…
NO “cause of action”, the plaintiff has no jurisdiction to grant to the court…
and has no CASE and is scamming and frauding you…
and committing a wrongs called treason and barratry.
Maxim of Law:
Actio non datur non damnificato.
An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
No damages to the claimant
NO cause of action to support a case in court….
damnum et injuria. Loss and wrong, the two elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action. 1AmJ2d Actions Section 70
Ballentines Law Dictionary 3rd Edition
the video clearly shows Mike was assaulted and was defending himself from the attack.
Skidmore and Weinhaus can exchange prison addresses.
You don’t defend against someone grabbing your arm by punching them in the head. Disproportionate response, and one of the key factors that a court looks at when determining self defense. Punching someone in the head can easily be considered deadly force. You don’t try to kill someone that grabs your arm and yanks on your camera. Even IF force was appropriate on his part, his LEVEL of force was not, and he deserves everything he gets.