Slashdot Mirror
Tesla: Journalists Trespassed At Gigafactory, Assaulted Employees (teslamotors.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Telsa Motors has published a blog post saying that a pair of journalists from the Reno Gazette Journal trespassed on the grounds of the company's new Gigafactory and attacked security workers with their vehicle when confronted. "As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2" bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3" bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms." Officials from the Sheriff's Department arrived shortly after this happened and arrested one of the trespassers for felony assault. The RGJ has a story about the altercation as well, confirming there was an altercation, but also noting, "The newspaper's vehicle was damaged in the altercation. A rock had been used to shatter the driver's-side window and the driver's-side seat belt had been cut in half."
They were Journalists from the Reno Gazette-Journal. This looks to me like neither side is telling the whole truth.
Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.
I dunno, depends on circumstance. If the employee broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt, then a reasonable driver might fear for his life.
I'm going to wait a day or two and see if more facts come to light, before I make any judgements.
(Of course, *you* are welcome to make judgements any time.)
It's very likely that if they had driven their vehicle at a police officer rather than Tesla security they would have been shot, and if they survived they would have been charged with attempted murder.
They were lucky that the Tesla security people either were not armed or chose not to shoot at them.
It says in TFA they climbed a fence marked "private property" in order to take the pictures. It's hard to climb a fence while carrying a Jeep. Ergo the Jeep was most likely parked outside the grounds of the factory.
Or the grounds of the factory extend beyond the fenced in area and they were confronted after they left the fenced-in area but while their jeep was still parked on factory property.
From Tesla:
The two RGJ employees and the Tesla employee were then met at the Jeep by a second safety manager at the Gigafactory. The two Gigafactory safety managers asked the RGJ employees to wait before departing, as security management and the Sheriff’s Department were en route to the scene. Disregarding this request, the RGJ employees entered the Jeep. As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee
So second safety manager pulls up and then when the RGJ folks try and get away somebody gets a license plate? No camera rolling? Sounds like an episode of Mayberry RFD or the Wacky Racers. Barney Fife would be proud. At least a real cop (Sheriff) arrested one of them. As I previously stated, Elon needs better security if he's concerned about trade secrets getting out or a better PR department onsite so that RGJ doesn't somehow think that they need to trespass.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Regardless of whether they were trespassing or not (it certainly sounds as though they were), the journalists clearly assumed they were being detained illegally and were thus allowed to drive in the manner they did. However, the Tesla employees were clearly up to the chase, to the point of being willing to literally block the journalists' vehicle with their fucking bodies (WTF?!) and then there's the automobile vs ATV vehicle warfare... As to whether the damaged window happened during or at the conclusion of the chase is debateable; the seatbelt is clearly not.
They all come across like a bunch of fucking assholes.
On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.
I agree in part--security people are normally trained to stay out of harm's way and this illustrates exactly why they shouldn't put themselves in harms way for a license plate or to detain someone. But I would also say that:
a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be. It's hard to reconcile the "rock attack" with any part of the stories, other than the collision with the ATV. You can't really hit the driver's window (or cut their seat belt) from behind the car.
b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time.
c) We need more facts, especially camera recordings (if any), to see what's going on here, or at least a detailed reconstruction of the scene of the accident. The police should have taken lots of pictures of the state of everything, so it shouldn't be too hard to see where exactly the blood stains, rocks (if any), skid marks, etc. were found.
But just for right now, we have several injured guards and no injured reporters. I don't know about the "rock attack" bit of the story, it doesn't add up yet. So it's certainly possible the guards did something legally wrong, but the two stories disagree and there's no corroborating evidence other than the car itself. We'll know if any evidence is found for the "rock attack" because charges will probably get filed if they can substantiate their claims of being attacked first.
I would tend to reserve judgement until the evidence is presented at trial, but I do see it being problematic that the guards are hurt and the reporters are not and neither side appears to dispute the claim that the reporters caused injury to the guards. If, as they say, they were attacked first, why is it that they are unable to allege any specific bodily injury as a result?
I use the same logic when someone is arrested for "resisting arrest" and the injuries sustained are completely disproportionate (i.e. one party is unhurt and the other party is severely hurt). If you were actually attacked, there should be some evidence of injury. Similarly, when one side tries to flee before the cops arrive--a part of the story that neither side appears to dispute--they become automatically suspect for that very reason.
There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because the reporters shouldn't have been on the property in the first place. Regardless of how the situation escalated, the incident was ultimately precipitated by the reporters trespassing.
The original infraction was trespassing. The obvious resolution for trespassing is to get the trespasser off the property. Charging them with criminal trespass is secondary. So whether the security guards had authority to stop someone from leaving the property was irrelevant - their primary goal should've been to get the reporters to leave. Which they were apparently trying to do at the time the injuries were sustained, when the guards tried to stop them.
If the security cameras in place were insufficient to grab a license plate and photos of the trespassers' faces, then that should've been something for the security guards to bring up at the next manager's meeting so it could be addressed in the future. We're not talking about thieves making off with the crown jewels, we're talking about a couple guys being where they're not supposed to be (at the time of the incident the security guards probably had no way to know these were reporters - anyone can print out an official-looking ID). There was no need for heroics on the part of the security guards. Chasing the reporters out should have been sufficient this time, with the incident providing ammo for the guards' request for better cameras and (perhaps) a gate at the entrance.
I've managed a 50 acre resort and have had to deal with trespassers (mostly high school kids from the neighborhood sneaking into the pool). The vast majority of them leave when asked. There is no reason to escalate the situation unless they refuse to leave or start destroying property. Unless they are causing or have caused physical damage, I really don't understand why you would want to stop them from leaving. Even if they cuss at you and flip you off, there's no reason to escalate things - being a jerk is not a crime.
Well, buttercup, sometimes bad things happen to you through no fault of your own. But you can respond to those bad things in ways that makes them better or worse. Your choice.
As to your example of jaywalking. You can dart out in front of an 18 wheeler or you can decide not to. One choice will turn you into roadkill. The other won't.
Finally, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing their job. Their job didn't require them to stand in the way of someone playing bumper cars. It doesn't matter how illegal the action was. They could have acted in a way that made it hurt less for themselves.