Yesterday we reported that police responding to a November 2009 fight between private security guards and skateboarders agreed with the security firm not to write up police reports at the time of the incident.
One officer, Nicholas D. Jones, appears to be the primary agressor among the guards. He allegedly told police officer Israel Holsti that he “swung and punched the kid on the side of the head… [and] said that is when the fight started.” Officer David Abrahamson’s report, written a month later, says that he told a supervisor with Pacific Patrol Services that “if the skateboarder had not engaged into mutual combat, I would have most likely arrested her security officer [Jones] for assault.”
According to the state of Oregon’s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), Jones was not certified as a security guard at the time of the incident. According to Todd Mitchell, a private security specialist with the department, Jones was certified as an “unarmed security professional” for the first time on January 29, 2010. This was the first time he had applied for certification.
Working as a private security officer without certification is illegal, and can result in fines for the company after a DPSST inquiry. Chris Brodniak, a DPSST investigator, writes in an email that the “potential sanction could be anywhere from a warning to $1500 in civil penalties (per offense). Sanctions can be imposed on the individual officer and/or the company as well.”
We have submitted a public records request to DPSST for employment and certification histories of all the involved guards. We have a call out for comment to Alan Pendergrass, the owner of Pacific Patrol Services, who is the only person with the company who will talk to the press. He’s out of the office until Monday. The Portland police bureau also has yet to provide comment on these issues.
Update 1:01 pm: Police bureau spokesperson Kelli Sheffer says that the police can’t comment on the guard’s status. “They, like us, are accountable to the DPSST,” she says.
So, if the kid didn’t hit back, the guard might have been charged? Nice. It’s not assault unless the victim shuts up and takes it.
@PDXwahine – Uh, yeah. Because then it’s mutual combat. Is that hard?
@Reymont: So self defense protects the aggressor from being charged with battery? I call bullshit.
Does this mean we get to punch folks (not you blabby, but tempting…) and if they punch us back it’s not a crime? I would like to have that in writing from the cops and DA before I test it out.
In Reymont’s world, any assault is justifiable if the victim attempts any type of defense.
Wow, rare unity in the forum. If one of the fighters hadn’t worn a uniform, I’m sure none of you would be so incensed; it’s only because you love to hate authority that you’re so turned on by this.
Here’s the explanation of “mutual combat,” from http://www.expertlaw.com. Can’t vouch for their veracity – they were the first Google hit. Feel free to do your own research before pretending your opinions and feelings have any importance to the investigation, of course.
“Voluntary (Mutual) Combat
Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action.”
@Reymont: Okay, I’ll bite. I’ll even ignore the bit about “for the sake of fighting,” since I’m pretty sure that that wasn’t the goal of either party, but lets say it was…
We pay taxes for city employees [contractors] to participate in gladiator contests at night in Pioneer Square?!?
And that is okay with you?
@Reymont I get what you’re saying, but do you really think this was mutual combat? The skateboard kid WANTED to fight the guard? I find it much more likely that he suspected a second punch was coming and started hitting back, rather than to just stand there and be a target. The guard escalated first, the kid escalated in response. The kid didn’t “enter voluntarily into a brawl,” the brawl started ON him and he chose a response.
There’s a reason that when a fight starts on the playground, the kid who threw the first punch gets the stiffer penalty.
Additionally, we’re in a comment section for a news story.. the general idea is for me to air my views. I’m not pretending my opinions and feelings have any importance to the investigation. I’m commenting. Is that hard?
@Reymont
Come on, a PPS uniform is as good as a Best Buy uniform.