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."

Comments

Record License Plate Number?

[Virtucon]

I would have thought this place would have had security cameras everywhere. Elon, you need better security staff or did you outsource it?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[wbr1]

Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Ralph Wiggam]

They just started building the place. It may not even have an electric grid hookup yet.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Spy Handler]

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Virtucon]

Actually the newer cameras out there are pretty good at it.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Virtucon]

Fist thing that usually goes in is power, even if it's temporary. This location isn't that remote. I used to live about 20 minutes from where that industrial park is located.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jeep could well have been parked on factory grounds, within the marked boundary, and the reports climbed yet another fence to get better pictures than they could from the Jeep.

Most construction sites have a fence right at the outermost perimeter, with a gate for (construction) vehicles. This may have been equivalent to the outer parking lot boundary for this site. They may limit that outermost fence to some distance either side of the entrance road, depending on the surrounding terrain, with another security/privacy fence closer to the building itself.

I can easily see how the Jeep could be on the factory grounds and they'd still want to climb a fence to get pictures.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Except when they're speeding cameras. Then they can capture a license plate on Pluto.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pluto? That's a bit much. Maybe a Saturn.

(ba dump bump!)

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[TWX]

Yep. Temporary fence is usually rented. There is normally no reason to rent more fence than necessary for the job, especially if the point of the fence is supposed to be to separate the more-dangerous hardhat area from the rest of the property.

In this particular case, even if a hired security guard overstepped and actually committed unjustified assault, that does not mean that the trespassers were right. The act of trespassing is a discrete act from assault, and if anything, the legal repercussions of a judgement in the trespassing case, which was the first act perpetuated, should prove relevant in an any assault case.

Either way this isn't really all that relevant and if I don't hear anything else about it I'm not going to be concerned in the slightest.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[SuperKendall]

It may not even have an electric grid hookup yet.

Do you even understand who is building this.

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me troll but you missed a perfect opportunity...Uranus would have been a better choice then some ringed multiple mooned gaseous giant.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was security soon their job.

Come again?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.

If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.

Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property. The request to stay for police and to record the car's license plate was as far as they should have gone.

It sounds like multiple parties were at fault. There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.

Let's go over the Tesla blog entry in more detail:

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 Sheriffâ(TM)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, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2â bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3â bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms.

As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. When one of the safety managers dismounted the ATV and approached the Jeep, the driver of the Jeep accelerated into him, striking him in the waist.

So here's what I see right away:

1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there.
2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell.
3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb.
4) If the driver had intended to hurt someone, the injuries (the only damage from the vehicle described) would probably have been a lot more severe and likely the Sheriff's Department would have arrested the driver on a charge of assault and battery or even attempted murder rather than just assault. They may still do that, but the blog indicates a lesser charge was selected for some reason.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Jack Griffin]

Cheap Cameras do not always capture plates well.

FTFY. Anyone who is actually interested in capturing number plates can get a suitable camera for the task, just ask your local LE.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

way to go ben carson

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fist thing that usually goes in is power, even if it's temporary. This location isn't that remote. I used to live about 20 minutes from where that industrial park is located.

You're putting your fist in where?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Intron]

They could have just hooked up a couple of batteries.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there.

On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, troll. You can't just drive over people when they are in your way, even if they shouldn't be in your way. Example: People aren't supposed to jay-walk. Doesn't mean you are allowed to run jay-walkers over. Get a life.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way

And I'd like to wave my Ultraman salt shaker to summon my chest beam to defeat Godzilla.

Hint: when panicky people are trying to drive away, you may not be able to get in a good place to get a safe picture of their front license plate. And even if there's a bit more space and mobility to see the rear license plate, it helps to get close enough so your own hand shaking doesn't blur the photograph into uselessness, especially with a modest cell phone camera in poor lighting.

But hey, you just wave your wand and say "trunkium leviosum" to hold up the end of rhe car 3 feet off the ground so you can get a *really good* shot of the license plate.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[BradMajors]

You didn't supply an explanation on how RGJ's car window was broken.
 

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[killkillkill]

I'm not sure there are many licence plates on your ringed multiple mooned ice giant, so that would not make much sense. I would bet most cars (that are not located in a junkyard) made by the GM subsidiary GP mentioned do have one, though.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not get struck by cars.. cars are stuck by ME!

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Xenographic]

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Solandri]

I agree with what you say with two modifications.

There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.

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.

Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property.

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Hint: when panicky people are trying to drive away, you may not be able to get in a good place to get a safe picture of their front license plate. And even if there's a bit more space and mobility to see the rear license plate, it helps to get close enough so your own hand shaking doesn't blur the photograph into uselessness, especially with a modest cell phone camera in poor lighting.

But hey, you just wave your wand and say "trunkium leviosum" to hold up the end of rhe car 3 feet off the ground so you can get a *really good* shot of the license plate.

Ok, then you don't get the license plate and don't get run over. If you're taking a bullet just to get a plate number, then you're doing it wrong.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Wasn't in the blog statement. The blog statement is what Tesla claims happened.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[gl4ss]

you don't really need to stand 2 feet from the bumper to read the plates.

also i'm pretty sure they have hd cams there.

also, wtf kind of factory area is it if they can just drive in to the are that they would be tresspassing in, that would make it ok to break the window and cut the seatbelt? while they were getting IN to the restricted area their license plate would have gone past a camera meant to record license plates. if it wasn't a cordoned off area then they had little basis on calling it restricted in the first place - fencing is cheap and its the first thing you put up anyways.

I would think that they would have gotten out of the car once the sheriff arrived. I find it far more likely that the backing up incident occurred due to them being scared - and them trying to block the car from moving rather than 'record the license plate'. it just sounds like bullshit. a visual id of the license plate and _any_ picture of the car would have been enough to give to the coppers anyways.

also, i know i don't usually bother with perfect english but i'm pretty sure soon is not a verb. pretty sure the failed professional security in this case was working on their first case ever and frankly weren't too much of actual professionals.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[fisted]

Sorry, Virtucon is currently busy.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Physics trumps human law. The illegality of hitting people with a car didn't stop these people from getting injured. Not being in the way of said car would have stopped these people from getting injured.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can blame "physics", but they're not going to arrest "physics" for hitting those people.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

This poster needs up votes.

You run power to a job site so you can run the tools that build the building.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Saint Elon supplies them with electricity from His Orifices? So, they stop while he's doing a press conference? I begin to understand the Tesla output problems.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[tlhIngan]

1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there.
2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell.
3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb.
4) If the driver had intended to hurt someone, the injuries (the only damage from the vehicle described) would probably have been a lot more severe and likely the Sheriff's Department would have arrested the driver on a charge of assault and battery or even attempted murder rather than just assault. They may still do that, but the blog indicates a lesser charge was selected for some reason.

It doesn't matter. All it boils down is you hit someone with a car. Doesn't matter if you were escaping or illegally on the property. Unless there was a proper self-defense role for leaving (i.e., you were being shot at), what you did is a hit and run, and is a criminal offense in many places. Especially since you got caught - you never intended to stop and render aid.

Second, you're a reporter. You know the law very well. Why run? If you're legally acquiring photos from a public place, then you are allowed to be where you are. If you're really trespassing on private property - then why are you there? Every reporter knows their rights, and they know if they're on legal public property, all photos taken are legitimate. So why run?

It better be some whistleblower thing, because really, a reporter on private property and trespassing, knowingly because you ran away when confronted (so you know you're not supposed to be where you are), and causing several hit and runs is a serious list of charges for mere interest.

Of course, is Tesla is smart, this is all they'd do - they'd let the people file charges against the newspaper and reporters (since it's official vehicles, it can be assumed it was officially sanctioned, and you always go for the sugar daddy). Then you'd just blacklist the RGJ from any future press conference and events. Like how Apple denies press tickets to Gawker over the whoel iPhone 4 thing.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when they're speeding cameras. Then they can capture a license plate on Pluto.

I don't think that Disney will allow you to do this.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[FlyHelicopters]

If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.

While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.

I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[FlyHelicopters]

a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be.

Thank you, this...

Even if the security ATV was blocking the road and preventing them from leaving, even if that is illegal, that doesn't then give you the right to drive over people or intentionally crash into another vehicle, with perhaps the sole exception of fear for your life...

Does anyone claim that security was pointing guns or shooting at the reporters? If not, then vehicular assault is clearly illegal.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Your 50 acre resort probably didn't have trade secrets to protect and didn't have to be concerned about competition and other people sneaking in to discover ways to harm your business.

Tesla has that concern, so they need better security.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lacerations indicated are more constant with the guard breaking the window and attempting to detain the reporters. My guess is that when they backed up the the guard was not hit severely, probably because he was attempting to block the vehicles exit, and had a chance to break the window and unsuccessfully attempt to detain the vehicle and driver.

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Italy they would, and they would prosecute all physicists as accomplices.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We don't need anything. A judge needs this, most likely. But why does this need to be public information?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[N1AK]

If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way

...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

You can blame "physics", but they're not going to arrest "physics" for hitting those people.

And you can blame "drivers", but that doesn't keep people from getting injured by motor vehicles. Issues of blame and law are separate from how to avoid getting injured in the first place. Just because someone is breaking the law doesn't mean that you have to get injured in the process.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[N1AK]

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.

Not saying this is what happened, but one explanation would be that a there were a group of security personnel near the vehicle when it intentionally/recklessly/accidentally hit the first one, the other security staff then got injured while they broke the window and cut the driver out of his seat.

Your logic about needing to show injury to prove you were attacked first doesn't match with reality. I can think of real life examples where it clearly isn't true. An example in this case might be that the security guards made a credible threat of violence while armed, or that one of the security guards attempted but failed to physically assault them. Maybe you're different but personally when someone tries to hit me, I don't wait until they have another go and succeed before considering myself under attack.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

It doesn't matter. All it boils down is you hit someone with a car.

It matters a great deal to the people who got hit by the car.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.

I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.

And why would my expectations justify me standing behind this vehicle? Hint: the first dude got hit because he was in the way. Even if everything was on the level, that could still happen just because the driver didn't look.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.

Because one has to be this AWESOME in order to figure out that standing behind a car which is pulling out is a bad idea.

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he had a stroke mid sentence.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[shilly]

If this is what your powers of observation are like, then I'm not surprised you're no longer working as a security guard.

Tesla say: "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"

You conclude: "the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out"

Backed out? That is waaay too much stew from one oyster. It could be that you're right. But it is equally possible, based on the Tesla statement, that the driver had a unobstructed path forward, but chose to reverse into the security guard. We don't know, because there is no information to support either scenario in the statement from Tesla. There is also no information to say how close the security guard was to the car, nor whether they were standing directly behind it or were off-centre.

But if you were to be open to the possibilities that the driver chose to reverse instead of driving forward, and that the security guard was standing a few metres away and off to one side, you wouldn't be able to be an armchair general, critiquing Tesla and its safety team. So instead you chose to assume that the driver could not go forward, and the guard was standing behind the vehicle.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Tesla say: "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"

You conclude: "the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out"

So the employee was standing somewhere else other than behind the vehicle when it backed up and hit them? You need to think about this some more.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

I do not buy "standing in their way to record the number plate". As far as I know, humans have a fairly good peripheral vision. I would be more into blocking a car without the authority to do so.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

I do not believe both in the security guards when they say they were in the vehicles path just "to record on the plate number" and I also do not believe in the journalists when they say the belt was cut. It seems fairly obvious both sides are embellishing stories. I believe far much more guards tried to put themselves in the way of the exit, and they forced their way out.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

It seems fairly obvious the guards tried to restrain the movements of their vehicle, to give time for the real police to arrive and were not asking them to leave. Americans seem to love a lot power trips.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

They are already obviously lying about an employee being hit because it was taking the plate number, maybe except if the employee is almost legally blind. Why would I also believe they got inside the fence?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

At my age that may take some time :)

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You, Captain Hindsight! You saved us all again!

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[LWATCDR]

It does not sound that way to me.
1. The journalists should not have been there. They where trespassing which is breaking the law.

"1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there."
Wrong. It is illegal to hit someone with your car when backing out of a location.

"2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell."
So what if it was? You are not allowed to just hit things with your car because they are in your way.

"3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb."
Maybe but your still not allowed to hit them with your car.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Cytotoxic]

Both the "rock attack" and the cut seatbelt probably occurred when the police arrived. The reporters probably wouldn't exit the vehicle so the cops broke the window and cut the seat belt to pull the driver out. This is a reasonably common police tactic when someone refuses to exit a vehicle.

The reason I doubt it was the security guards is the reporting from the RGJ. They don't report their employee's version - they ask the Sheriff and say he "can't confirm how that damage occurred". So I'd say the police broke the window, probably not with a rock, and then they cut the seatbelt and pulled the driver from the vehicle. At least that is the most plausible version of events.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the window was smashed and the seat belt cut by the guards while the journalist was in the vehicle (as seems plausible), it seems reasonable that the journalist might have no serious injuries yet was frightened enough to defend himself by escaping.

Given the car damage it strikes me as much more likely that the guards tried to (illegally) restrain the journalist before the journalist injured them while escaping, than the reverse; that the journalist attacked them with his car, and they afterwards managed to somehow cut the journalist's seatbelt.

If that's the timeline, then while there's no question the journalist started it by trespassing, it sounds like the guards committed the more serious offenses (attempted kidnapping, assault, and vandalism), whereas the journalist's offence was non-violent (trespassing), followed by self-defense.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

I would have thought you do not have to be 1 inch near the car or in the car direct line of view to take a photo of the plates. My iPhone must be magic.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ruir]

The employee must be an addict that likes to sniff car plates, that should be it. Otherwise I do not see clearly a reason for him to be there...or maybe he is Mr. Magoo and needed to have a real look at the plate to be able to see it. That excuse of taking the photo is so dense...

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property.

You're mistaken. They, just like anyone else can perform a citizens' arrest.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, because it's called the judicial system and crimes are public information.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[shilly]

Really, what is the point of putting a false argument in my mouth when my actual argument is there for all to see in the previous post?

Was it really so difficult for you to understand that I was pointing out that you had no basis on which to conclude that:
1. the driver was backing out. And backing out means something more than just reversing. You back out from a parking space. You back out when you can't go forward.
2. the safety guard was standing directly behind the vehicle and in close proximity.

I even described the two scenarios: yours, in which a dopey guard stands immediately behind a car that is parked up against an obstacle and so cannot go forward, and who therefore gets run over when the driver reverses; and an alternative, in which a guard stands a few feet back from, and possibly even to the side of, a car which is free to go forward, and the driver deliberately reverses, swinging the car towards the guard and running him over on purpose.

And yet you pretend that I was arguing something else! I mean, it's a bit sad, really. As is changing "out" to "up" because you think it makes you look like you were never implying the driver had nowhere to go in your first post, despite it being patently obvious from your posts that this is precisely what you thought.

Anyway, now that I have explained it all -- again -- and pointed out that there is an alternate scenario -- again, it would be interesting to see you actually engage with the substance and possibly even acknowledge that other scenarios than the one you envisaged are just as plausible, based on the evidence available. Then again, it would be interesting to see pigs fly, and I think the latter is more likely than you admitting you hadn't thought this all through and just wanted to be rude about the choice some poor sod made that landed up with him getting injured, so that you could look clever.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Holi]

It wouldn't matter if the security guards were pointing guns. You would have a hard time claiming self defense against a security guard while you were trespassing.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Chris453]

No-one cares if you "buy" their argument. In a civilized country with laws you cannot run people over because they got in your way. How could any SANE person think that someone standing behind your car gives you the right to run them over? Man, I hope no kids are riding their bikes in your neighborhood. Those protesters in front of those police cars, just run them over -- right? You are clearly deranged.

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, Uranus is not also a brand of car. Saturn is (or was, I don't know if they still make cars).

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[parkinglot777]

Actually the newer cameras out there are pretty good at it.

And you expect to have that recording 24/7? Don't know how much effort the company wants to put into when they don't really expect this kind of incident. Also, the video shows a "fixed" position of camera angle which means you assume that every car will be driving in the same direction of camera viewing. We don't know how the car in TFA is actually parked/driven, so a camera position/angle could miss the car's license plate...

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way? You sound like a victim blamer, that kind of moron that runs over a dog in the road and explains to the owner of the dog "he shouldn't have been in the road" instead of "i should have applied the brakes instead of speeding up to hit him". Well, no shite sherlocke, hooo boy we got ourselves a reeeeeel smert one heer, eh boys?


We all know how to reflect on previous events to figure out what went wrong, (read: learning from your mistakes) but that doesn't change or help the fact that it already occurred and as such saying "you shouldn't have been standing there" is not helpful in any way regarding the current situation, and makes you sound like a child.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Physics trumps human law. The illegality of hitting people with a car didn't stop these people from getting injured.

No one is saying otherwise, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to say this. What is being said, is that the illegality of hitting people, means we have something with which to charge the driver.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This place" is still under construction. Things like roads and landscaping have not been finished yet. I doubt they even have Internet on-site yet. Plenty of images and drone footage online of the site.

Re: Record License Plate Number?

[steveg]

They don't. Saturn went away in the great GM implosion, along with Pontiac. I had thought Oldsmobile as well, but Google tells me it went away in 2004.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't supply an explanation on how RGJ's car window was broken.

Neither does RGJ. It doesn't show up in the Police Report either.
Ever considered the possibility that the reporters broke their own window and cut the belt themselves?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, dont blame the victim, blame the aggressor; novel concept.
Liberals believe if they play dead and roll over nothing bad will happen to them.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those protesters in front of those police cars, just run them over -- right?"

Well, in all fairness, the police would run those people over. In fact, in some instances, they did!

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ultranova]

The obvious resolution for trespassing is to get the trespasser off the property.

Not when the property in question is a factory. For all the security personnel knew the reporters could actually have been disguised thieves, industrial spies or even saboteurs. Trespassers on industrial plants need to be taken in for questioning, not just shooed away.

Unless they are causing or have caused physical damage,

Which you can't possibly know until you've gone through every goddamn screw in the area. Which, of course, is impossible. That's why you need to take them into custody and hope they aren't willing to become martyrs for some retarded cause.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing their job.

Were you? Because just after this post, you posted another reply saying that "physics trumps human law". That sure doesn't sound like something you'd say if you really are just saying that security could have been doing their job better.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[hawguy]

They are already obviously lying about an employee being hit because it was taking the plate number, maybe except if the employee is almost legally blind. Why would I also believe they got inside the fence?

I don't see how you determined that they were "obviously lying". Afterall, the Sheriff's department thought there was enough evidence to arrest the journalists.

Why do you think it's implausible for events to have happened as the Tesla employees claimed? Do you think it's impossible that they were using a cell phone to record the license plate as they claimed?

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.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Coren22]

Is Bruce Lee back from the grave?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Coren22]

Why do you think that the security guard was right on the bumper? He could have been 10 feet back and still was struck. The journalists also hit someone after hitting the ATV they were riding, so it sounds like quite the violent offender.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when they're speeding cameras. Then they can capture a license plate on Pluto.

Except when who are speeding camera's? Are you suggesting their going to dress up as speeding camera's for Halloween?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Coren22]

The factory is currently under construction. How much security do you think construction sites warrant?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

All information about all crimes are public information? Rape victims will be horrified to learn this, as this is in fact not completely true.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, backing into someone with a Jeep sounds like "intent to harm" to me. I'm pretty sure if I backed into someone by mistake in a parking lot, I'd be lucky to avoid a lawsuit, so doing that with intent is a particularly bad idea. What were they running from that desperately?

Essentially, these journalists were fleeing a crime scene, and sustained damage/injury in the process. I'm not seeing the problem here? Either you accept you broke the law (criminal trespassing on private property) and wait patiently to face the consequences of your actions, or you decide to attempt to flee and accept the consequences of that action: possible injury or damage to your property.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have placed a sign outside: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.", and instead of taking license plates or trying to apprehend the transgressors they would just be true to their word and shoot them... and shoot them again accordingly.

No? :P

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Virtucon]

considering the cost? A lot. Construction site theft and vandalism is a big problem in the US. It's a bigger problem when the Press circumvents property rights.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uranus. Please.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're = they are

So the statement was "Except when they are speeding cameras."
Perfectly grammatically correct. The pronoun 'they' being the third-person, plural, non-gendered term appropriate for a collection of inanimate objects. Had he been referring to a single camera, it would have been 'it is' (or it's).

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the grounds of the new gigafactory". i.e. private property. That would seem to indicate NOT A PUBLIC ROAD, and yes, you can block the exit.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The first dude got hit because the driver backed into him after being caught trespassing. Your follow-up excuse just turns it from an intentional hit and run, into a negligent hit and run. Both of which are *crimes*. Usually felonies when it involves injuring a *person*. At that point (in most states), *anybody* has the legal right to detain the criminal who they witnessed commit said felony. Witnessing a security officer having been struck by the car, and witnessing the driver proceed to strike another security officer with said car, the officers would have been justified in leveling deadly force against the drivers.

Misdemeanor trespassing, followed up with negligent assault with a deadly weapon, and then reckless assault with a deadly weapon.

Even if the security officers *did* stop the car, smash out the window with a rock, and cut the seat belt in order to drag the driver from the vehicle, they were completely within their rights to do so at that point.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

No. The first dude got hit because the driver backed into him after being caught trespassing.

Are you even thinking here? It is completely irrelevant to the security employee and the injuries he/she received whether the driver was trespassing or not. Standing behind a running car is a bad idea no matter what's going on. It's not magically different just because a crime was occurring.

Even if the security officers *did* stop the car, smash out the window with a rock, and cut the seat belt in order to drag the driver from the vehicle, they were completely within their rights to do so at that point.

For a trespass misdemeanor? No way.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Here are the particulars of the Tesla story which you ignore. First, the guard was copying down the license plate. That indicates a relatively close proximity to the vehicle. Second, the injuries were slight. That indicates at the time of impact the vehicle wasn't going very fast. That plus the rest, indicates to me that the guard was behind the vehicle. And it is simply irrelevant to the guard's injuries what was in front of the reporters' vehicle. You shouldn't stand behind a running vehicle.

And yet you pretend that I was arguing something else!

I did not. Read the post.

Anyway, now that I have explained it all -- again -- and pointed out that there is an alternate scenario -- again

Scenarios are completely irrelevant here. You can't slowly back up in a car and hit someone unless they are behind you.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?

You don't need a time machine when common sense is good enough.

You sound like a victim blamer

The victim wasn't a dog, he/she was a trained professional.

We all know how to reflect on previous events to figure out what went wrong, (read: learning from your mistakes) but that doesn't change or help the fact that it already occurred and as such saying "you shouldn't have been standing there" is not helpful in any way regarding the current situation, and makes you sound like a child.

Doesn't sound to me like you know how to reflect on previous events. Once again, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing its job. If you want to understand these events, you need to be aware of the mistakes that security made here. That may be as far as it goes, or it may indicate that security had done other things wrong as well.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Really, dont blame the victim

I'm blaming the victim for what they did wrong. I'm not blaming them for the actions of the driver.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

No one is saying otherwise, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to say this.

Let's review the thread. I observe that the statement made by Tesla indicates the first employee to be struck was behind the vehicle. They state the vehicle was backing up, the employee was recording the license plate in some way, and the employee received rather slight injuries for a car impact as a result. That indicates to me that the security guard was standing behind a running vehicle which is a bad idea no matter what is going on.

In response, this poster says:

On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.

This is a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the injuries that the security guard received as a result of where they were standing whether the driver was engaged in illegal activity or not. Hence, my reply:

Physics trumps human law. The illegality of hitting people with a car didn't stop these people from getting injured. Not being in the way of said car would have stopped these people from getting injured.

Do you understand now?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Aqualung812]

And you expect to have that recording 24/7? Don't know how much effort the company wants to put into when they don't really expect this kind of incident.

No, almost all security DVRs will drop frames with no motion.
Good ones will OCR the plates and tie it to a single frame of the car, and save that for a long time with very little space consumed.

As for putting in effort, why even put up the camera if you're not going to record stuff like this?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Because just after this post, you posted another reply saying that "physics trumps human law". That sure doesn't sound like something you'd say if you really are just saying that security could have been doing their job better.

Read the thread. And at the end, ask yourself what is more likely to keep you from getting hit by a car: behavior modification laws making it illegal for drivers to hit people with their cars or not being in the way of a moving car?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

"1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there."

Wrong. It is illegal to hit someone with your car when backing out of a location.

Bad != illegal. If you're standing where you can get hit by a slow moving vehicle, then you are doing something wrong. It may not be illegal, depending on circumstances, but it's definitely a bad idea.

"2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell."

So what if it was? You are not allowed to just hit things with your car because they are in your way.

You are, if you have a reasonable self defense case. I doubt that legal theory will fly here, but there's at least one exception here. And if the driver can convince a judge or jury that they were extremely rattled and confused to the point that they didn't know what they were doing, they probably can get off with a lighter sentence.

"3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb."

Maybe but your still not allowed to hit them with your car.

Why did 8-10 people in this thread assume because I stated these observations, that I felt it was ok for the driver to hit the security guard? Come on, think.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

I bet you can sit in on a rape trial and learn all sorts of grisly information that a rape victim would be horrified for you to know. A lot of information is not public information, but trials are pretty open. You will learn a lot about the crime no matter what.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Not when the property in question is a factory. For all the security personnel knew the reporters could actually have been disguised thieves, industrial spies or even saboteurs. Trespassers on industrial plants need to be taken in for questioning, not just shooed away.

No, they don't. This isn't Area 51. There are huge liability risks from playing cop. And I have to say, from the behavior of the security personnel involved, that it doesn't sound like they were trained to do citizen's arrest or whatever.

Which you can't possibly know until you've gone through every goddamn screw in the area. Which, of course, is impossible. That's why you need to take them into custody and hope they aren't willing to become martyrs for some retarded cause.

Hope is a pretty shitty thing to go on here. And let us keep in mind that hope got two employees injured and an ATV damaged.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Works fine until you shoot someone's grandma with Alzheimer's or some dumb kids looking for a place to get drunk.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

he/she was a trained professional.

Was he/she? I don't see any particular description from the friendly story.

They could have been on teh Red shirt and Stormtrooper end of the spectrum of security guards.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

Would you know how to legally perform a citizen's arrest? I've worked as a security guard and I don't. Hence, I would not do it. I'll note here the fact that two security personnel were hit by the reporters' vehicle indicates that they probably did not have the training to do a proper citizen's arrest. And even if they did have such training, they were taking excessive risks.

There are huge dangers to security guards playing cop. Sustaining avoidable injuries, as in this case, is one of those consequences.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[khallow]

I suppose. There were also two managers there, which would be more likely to know what they were supposed to be doing.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, further proof might establish that they had some fear for their lives, but we don't have that evidence and we do have evidence that people were injured--no one has disputed that and the police have filed charges.

While you can defend yourself from deadly force or grievous bodily injury with deadly force, they're going to have to have evidence that they were under a threat like that or they're going to end up in big trouble. Now, we should reserve judgement because we haven't seen all the facts yet, but the incomplete set of facts available and the undisputed parts of the story say that the journalists are probably in trouble.

As a side note, the use of the car was deadly force. They'll be wanting to show that they feared for their very lives here. If they're not able to give evidence for that, their chances of getting out of this are bad.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Xenographic]

Only the guy in the back was claimed to be getting the number.

If the physical evidence corroborates the claim that they *reversed* into a guard, they're going to have a really, really hard time getting out of this.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[ethanms]

You sound like a victim blamer, that kind of moron that runs over a dog in the road and explains to the owner of the dog "he shouldn't have been in the road" instead of "i should have applied the brakes instead of speeding up to hit him". Well, no shite sherlocke, hooo boy we got ourselves a reeeeeel smert one heer, eh boys?

You're assuming that the dog was simply standing idle in the road, or otherwise moving within a small area on the road, and that the driver had ample time to see and react to this.

You've failed to consider the (arguably) equally likely case that a dog is in motion, but out of view of the driver, and on a trajectory that intercepts the path of vehicle not giving the driver sufficient time to react.

Relating this back to the article, until we see video footage of the incident, or an impartial eye witness accounting, I think it's just as likely that an overzealous security guard decided to step into the path of a vehicle assuming that the operator would a) notice this, and b) have sufficient time to react, then it is likely that the operator of the vehicle knowingly collided the vehicle with the guard.

khallow was pointing out that being within the path of a vehicle, particularly a fleeing vehicle, is not a smart thing. When you wait for the pedestrian walk symbol, is it safer to stand a foot or two out into the street toward moving traffic, or back on the sidewalk? In the same line of thinking when they saw that the vehicle was started and moving they should have simply backed away and let the vehicle leave--they are not cops stopping a murderer, they are private security guards.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Riddle me this - why would you contract that, in an attempt to save one whole keystroke, and end up wasting a whole shitload of keystrokes trying to explain your poor use of contractions?

I think you're (ie - you are) the only one I've (ie - I have) ever seen use that one.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Lakitu]

SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?

Preparation doesn't require a time machine. Knowing that vehicles can back over you and kill you is not magic, nor difficult, nor even time consuming. If you know this going into the situation, then your decision-making regarding standing behind vehicles controlled by crazed, antagonistic morons is much more likely to end up with you recording the license plate information without standing in its path.

You sound like a victim blamer,

You sound like a fucking moron. You're going to die someday. If you aren't aware that vehicles may cause this, or other significant injury, then it's much more likely to happen. Blame has nothing to do with it. If your legs are removed from your torso by a large truck, are you going to sit there thinking happily to yourself "I'm glad this isn't my fault"?

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[shilly]

Unless you have especially bad eyesight, you can copy down a license plate from a good 20m away.

The car was in reverse, so it was of course not travelling especially fast. Cars don't go very fast in reverse.

You may claim now that it is irrelevant as to whether there is something in front of the car, but you didn't claim that earlier. You described a scenario in which the driver reversed the car, having no ability to drive it forward, and innocently collided with the guard. Now you are saying that this is not so.

Anyway, you keep on in moral smug-land, lording it over the security guard. It makes you happy, clearly.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

What belongs to the speeding camera? Are you suggesting by the use of the apostrophe, a possessive?

It would really help your case if you actually knew what you are talking about, and didn't use an apostrophe plural... (Oh, and knew the difference between their and they're...)

So, in the process of pointing a mistake that doesn't exist, you make three... That must be embarrassing for you.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you don't get the joke, so just go the fuck away.

Re:Record License Plate Number?

[Anonymous Coward]

no if in an eclipse
(dump bump tsss!)

They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Trespassing is trespassing.

Re:They should have been shot

[taustin]

Seems a little severe for an infraction that cannot carry a jail sentence, to me.

Of course, if they tried to run down security, at that point, yes, they should have been shot.

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the security guards * attacked the journalists * in all likelihood. The journalist got the picture- they just wanted to leave and were being held hostage by the security guards which is why they used lethal force (ie the vehicle) to defend themselves. The security guards clearly acted violently against the journalists (breaking the window) which justifies the use of force against said security guards.

Re:They should have been shot

[Martin Blank]

By the provided accounts, they were being detained by the security guards, which in many cases can legally do so if someone is caught on the property they're supposed to protect. Hostage-taking is when there's no legal reason to prevent someone from leaving in the first place.

Re:They should have been shot

[silas_moeckel]

6 Months in Nevada for regular trespass, NRS207.200

As we're still dealing with "reporters" around sandy hook I much prefer texas if you dont think they are kids shoot them.

Re:They should have been shot

[cloud.pt]

Jail time or not, there's still little reason to kill someone over tresspassing, or even theft or vandalism of physical property. In any case, I find the lack of heavier security surprising. Even for a straight up company like Tesla, this is a factory pretty much deciding the near-future of clean energy, and, at the very least, of +1Billion USD of taxpayer money. It could even be Big Oil trying to undermine the place by acquiring intel ffs. Not being protected by armed personel (and I mean SMGs and above), along with them bigg ass signs stating "Tresspassers will be shot", is a clear lack of responsibility by itself. Such measures have worked for the military - I bet you can count with one hand the number of tresspasses on continental US military bases (excluding of course: kids, drones, acts of war and the obvious crazy person that is clinically diagnosed with lack of common sense).

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

you better not step on my front lawn. i'll detain you at gunpoint!

Re:They should have been shot

[glenebob]

There's no reason to kill them. There is plenty of reason to stop them. Stopping someone from committing a crime, and punishing someone for committing a crime, are *completely* separate concepts.

Don't want to get stopped from doing the wrong thing in a potentially deadly fashion, don't do the wrong thing. Seems simple enough.

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

not severe at all, if anyone enters your house/property without specific invitation in USA you have right to kill them on spot, you dont even have to warn them.

Re:They should have been shot

[TWX]

As I understand it (having never experienced it) that's the justification for the detention of shoplifters by those that are not deputized law enforcement. I expect it falls into the realm of what legally constitutes a citizen's arrest.

If the journalists were caught trespassing, being journalists does not give them any kind of extra protected class against such a charge. If it's true that the guards were only attempting to prevent their departure after informing them that police had been summoned, they probably would have been 'trespassed' off the property by law enforcement and warned that a future incident would result in arrest, unless they'd already been trespassed off the property by police previously, in which case they would certainly be justifiably subject to arrest.

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

actually you should shoot on spot anyone that enters your property without invitation from you, it is law, and so should this security guards, than their life would not be in danger

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to citizens arrests, fleeing the crime scene is in and of itself a crime.
The police expect you to be there when they arrive, and not being there is viewed by the court as the same as fleeing a crime scene when being detailed by a real police officer.

The main reason one should never flee a store when being detained for shoplifting is simple logistics for the accused.

You can stay on site and for a first offence get charged with a fine and maybe a number of days of jail time (usually not weeks or more however)

Or, you can flee, pretty much guaranteeing a shoplifting sentence (fleeing an officer is viewed by the court as an admission of guilt, lacking extreme circumstances) PLUS a 3-10 year prison sentence, where the minimum sentence is pretty much guaranteed again.

Note that in most states of the US those are two separate felonies now, meaning if you had a single felony on your record anytime in your life before, three felonies is automatic life in prison with no chance of parole.

If you don't flee, even if it isn't your first offence, you very likely won't be getting any prison time, although repeat offenders may see more jail time.

Neither case sounds too fun to me (and why I don't shoplift I suppose) but one sounds like a lot more suckage for a lot longer...

Back on the topic at hand, about the only thing a citizens arrest can not involve is forced detention (IE by physically forcing you) by the non-police officer.
But that is generally understood by most people in the physical security field, since it can only cause problems for you, plus isn't really needed since if the suspect flees due to lack of physical force to stop them, it's pretty much an instant felony against the suspect nearly all of the time.

I'm not saying the security officers here did use force, I'm only saying they should know better than to try and how unneeded it is to use.

Re:They should have been shot

[Narcocide]

I think that's actually only true in a small handful of the US states. In most of them you still have to prove you were acting in self-defense, and in some of them you further have to prove that your action was proportionate to the level of actual danger.

Re:They should have been shot

[firewrought]

There's no reason to kill them. There is plenty of reason to stop them.

Enjoy jail, and maybe a lawsuit from the family. The law only permits you to use deadly force when defending yourself (or others) from imminent death or grievous bodily harm. Even then, you better have been unable to satisfy any applicable duty to retreat, have eyewitnesses on your side, and hope the cops who show up feel instinctively friendly to you.

Don't be this idiot.

Re:They should have been shot

[ColdWetDog]

You don't shoot people for trespassing unless it's in your own house**. You don't need heavily armed guards. In fact, you don't want heavily armed guards because it is rather easy to make a fatal mistake. Bad juju, that.

But don't worry, I rather doubt Elon will hire you on for the security detail.

** And you live the following US states: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas,Tennessee or Washington.

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't shoot people for trespassing unless it's in your own house**. You don't need heavily armed guards. In fact, you don't want heavily armed guards because it is rather easy to make a fatal mistake. Bad juju, that.

But don't worry, I rather doubt Elon will hire you on for the security detail.

** And you live the following US states: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas,Tennessee or Washington.

That list is quite out of date, these days it's a minority of states that don't permit you to use deadly force defend yourself on your own property. Also many of them have laws preventing the invader's family from trying to sue you because you shot their precious sweet gangbanger son.

Re:They should have been shot

[Hartree]

"Trespassing is trespassing."

In the words of Sergeant Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis."

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL well since most of you jumped the conclusion shooting = lethal force... I'm going to either assume you're paranoid euros who are afraid of firearms or don't know how to properly aim.

Re:They should have been shot

[Hartree]

"I'm going to either assume you're paranoid euros who are afraid of firearms or don't know how to properly aim."

*snerk* Wrong on both counts.

And, obviously you've never been trained in combat marksmanship. You always aim center of mass.

Re:They should have been shot

[taustin]

That depends on whether trespassing is a misdemeanor or an infraction. Which can be very, very fuzzy in some states. In California, you don't make a citizen's arrest on trespassing, which is a traffic ticket. Holding them against their will becomes unlawful imprisonment, a misdemeanor in its own right. Holding them and moving them elsewhere becomes kidnapping, a felony, which justifies the use of deadly force in self defense.

And Tesla's own account says their security guards tried to detain the trespassers, but not that they made a citizen's arrest. And even if they did, a citizen's arrest on a misdemeanor doesn't justify the use of deadly force, and breaking a window and using a knife to cut a seat belt off the driver becomes a felony assault in its own right, which does justify running them down to get away.

But we don't know who did what, or in what order it happened. And those are both very important factors. We can presume that the cops found the security guys' account more plausible, since they arrested the trespassers. But you have to keep in mind, the security guards work for a billionaire who is brining hundreds of millions of dollars and who knows how many jobs into the county, and the cops are going to be very inclined to arrest somebody just to separate the combatants, and the ones who were clearly trespassing are the easiest to drag off at the time.

And the press isn't capable of accurately reporting on any story that involves one of their darlings, which Elon Musk is. The only credible source of details is the trial transcripts. In the meantime, adjusting one tiny little detail changes it from a felony on one side to a felony on the other, or to nothing at all.

Re:They should have been shot

[FlyHelicopters]

That depends on whether trespassing is a misdemeanor or an infraction. Which can be very, very fuzzy in some states. In California, you don't make a citizen's arrest on trespassing, which is a traffic ticket. Holding them against their will becomes unlawful imprisonment, a misdemeanor in its own right. Holding them and moving them elsewhere becomes kidnapping, a felony, which justifies the use of deadly force in self defense.

Depends on the state, situation, and location...

Here in Texas, even with our gun culture and self-defense viewpoint, you cannot detain someone (or shoot them or threaten to do so in any manor) if they are simply walking across your property. You can verbally inform them they are trespassing and you'll call the cops if they don't leave.

However, if they attempt to steal your property, if you see them pickup something like a generator off your land and try to leave with it, then you can shoot them.

Re:They should have been shot

[FlyHelicopters]

I'm from Texas, I've been shooting and carrying guns all my life.

You are completely correct... deadly force is only to be used when defending yourself...

The irony is that in Texas, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect your property as well... however most people I've talked to have told me they won't shoot someone over "stuff".

I know I wouldn't... only to protect another person or myself...

Guns are not toys and you should never use one casually. That idiot you posted about... lord that it someone screaming for a Darwin award...

Re:They should have been shot

[khallow]

The main reason one should never flee a store when being detained for shoplifting is simple logistics for the accused.

Unless, of course, you won't get caught as a result.

Re:They should have been shot

[rch7]

It isn't the law in most places. The law is that you are likely will get life sentence if you shoot somebody just for trespassing. Just entering without invitation do not pose a danger to you.

Re:They should have been shot

[cloud.pt]

As I said, seems way off to shoot someone for trespassing. But making it look like you will shoot them with 5.56mm caliber, that's a whole 'nother story. Those can (actually should) be rubber point rather than FMJ if you're worried about "mistakes". Any security company will tell you 95% effectiveness comes from appearance of force, and the other 5% to actual application of force. If you're the type of guy who develops and names a "bioweapon defense mode" in a car, you're the type of guy who is aware of certain dangers of society, and worrying about public opinion on the security of something everyone knows will be heavily scrutinized by fossil fuel lobbying, seems to me much like worrying that the earth is round.

Re:They should have been shot

[Muad'Dave]

... or shoot them or threaten to do so in any manor ...

So I can 'shoot them or threaten to do so' as long as my abode is humble? Where's the dividing line between a mansion and a manor?

Re:They should have been shot

[Holi]

Using lethal force while committing a misdemeanor is gonna raise that charge up to felony status right quick.

Re:They should have been shot

[silas_moeckel]

I dont see anything about the security guards attempting to use lethal force. The reporters did.

My comment was about "reporters" the sort that hop fences and go running at 6-10 year olds playing in their backyards to interview them about a mass shooting they were involved with. Mind you this is after being told no they can't several times.

Re:They should have been shot

[FlyHelicopters]

Ok, that was kinda funny... I'll give you a 5/10 for that one. :)

Re:They should have been shot

[Megol]

I just want to thank you for being a reasonable gun user.

Re:They should have been shot

[FlyHelicopters]

Thanks. :)

I'm trying really hard to teach my kids non-violent conflict resolution. If there is anyway to avoid a fight, do so. Back down, walk away, talk it out, whatever.

I am trying to instill in them the concept that if we are to call ourselves civilized, then the violence against our fellow humans has got to stop. It is a really crappy way to solve problems.

Maybe we need to focus on teaching how to resolve conflicts and disagreements peaceful and respectfully in school, since it doesn't seem to be happening as much at home anymore. Provide kids the knowledge and skills to work out differences without resorting to hitting, kicking, etc.

Anyway, thanks. :)

Re:They should have been shot

[Megol]

You are an idiot. Even "non-lethal" weapons do kill people with enough regularity that they are always called "less-lethal" nowadays. Use of a weapon is always potentially deadly, most professional users of weapons (excepting most soldiers) are trained to only use them if absolutely necessary. Even a shot in a leg/arm can be lethal even with professional care right away - heck, one can die from a near miss or from shock.

Re:They should have been shot

[Megol]

Well a protected civilian object isn't a combat zone and even for military objects the guards aren't usually ordered to shoot to kill. I was trained to shoot to incapacitate if an attacker were enough threat to me/others to require force to stop but not enough a threat to stop permanently.

Re:They should have been shot

[Lab Rat Jason]

Self-defense cannot be used as your legal defense if it was done while committing a crime. The journalists don't have a leg to stand on.

Re:They should have been shot

[david_thornley]

You can't shoot to incapacitate. You can wind up incapacitating but not killing someone you shoot, but it's not going to be reliable. If you need to incapacitate but not kill, you use something less lethal like a Taser.

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Your list of Castle Law states is out of date. Pennsylvania aka Pennsyltucky has had Castle Doctrine since June 2011.

heh, Captcha was: besieged

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

" I was trained to shoot to incapacitate if an attacker were enough threat to me/others to require force to stop "

Thank you. Someone gets it. They're still assuming shooting = bullets too, and not tazers, spray, etc. Silly /dooters

Re:They should have been shot

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of ****. No branch of the military, and no police department in the US trains *anybody* to 'shoot to incapacitate' with a firearm. *Period.* Full-stop.

They, train people to shoot to stop the threat[1], specifically by shooting center of mass[2].

[1] Stopping the threat may well involve killing the threat, but that isn't actually the goal. Stopping the threat often won't even involve shooting at all, since *most* people don't want to get shot, and will react rather sensibly to a gun being pointed at them by getting the heck out of Dodge. Regardless, there is, literally, no place on the human body where you can shoot someone and be expected to incapacitate them, but not *also* risk killing them.

[2] Center of mass isn't quite what most people think it is (the gut), it's actually the area inside a triangle drawn between your nipples and the base of your throat. That's where most of your vital organs, and large arteries/veins are, and therefore where you are most likely to have a hit cause the attacker to stop being a threat most quickly.

Re:They should have been shot

[nytes]

Who the heck trains to shoot to incapacitate? Unless by "incapacitate" they mean "it doesn't matter whether they're dead or not, as long as they aren't moving".

The military used to be trained to shoot to wound, because for every enemy soldier you wound, it usually takes two others out of combat to take care of him (if you're in a combat situation where the soldiers are actually trained to take care the wounded, and not a bunch of suicidal terrorists). But they don't really expect it to happen that way all the time.

Police are trained to shoot to kill. One of the reasons is that there's a good chance that, regardless of where you try to aim, they'll die anyway if you hit them. Using a firearm is always considered lethal force. Another good reason is that you may miss your target completely unless you aim for the center, which just happens to be where all those vital organs are.

I recall reading an article, many years ago, saying that a study of gunshot victims had found that most of them should not have died from the wounds sustained by the gunshot. There was some speculation that there may be something psychological about "Oh my god, I've been shot!", that negatively affects their ability to survive.

Re:They should have been shot

[lucien86]

Of course the exacerbating point here is that the journalists may have photographed something secret, or even have stolen something containing a secret.. That could be highly valuable or damaging to the company. In no way is it comparable to stealing say food from a supermarket. It is more comparable to espionage, it might even be classified as useful in potential terrorism. In the post 9/11 world doing something like this could even potentially get someone shot.

Serves them right

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:Serves them right

[Calibax]

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.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

If a rent-a-cop shoots someone, they go to jail for a long time. Hell, they're probably going to get in trouble for their attempts to detain the reporter.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

If you shoot someone driving a vehicle at you and kill them then it is called justifiable homicide. You have the right to self defense, especially in a state like Nevada where everyone seems to carry a gun. The last time I stayed there even the guard at the Best Western in Carson City was carrying one and as a foreigner I found the notion that a small hotel needs an armed guard to be very disturbing.

Re: Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I believe Elon Musk is going to own a newspaper after this incident. It's not smart to piss off people who can afford to sue your company out of existence.

Re:Serves them right

[drinkypoo]

If a rent-a-cop shoots someone, they go to jail for a long time. Hell, they're probably going to get in trouble for their attempts to detain the reporter.

It's too bad you're completely ignorant of the law, but it's not a big surprise since you're posting as AC and most AC comments are completely ignorant. That's why the posters don't log in. They know they're big fucking idiots.

First, if someone deliberately tries to run you over with a car, that's vehicular homicide. You have a right to self-defense, and that includes shooting them right in the fucking face. Second, Nevada permits citizen's arrest, so long as you do not employ deadly force. The usual bar is "necessary force" to execute an arrest. Killing someone is not executing an arrest. You still, however, have the right to use deadly force in self-defense while executing a citizen's arrest.

Anyone who tries to run me over while I'm armed is going to get shot, and shot a lot, if I can't reasonably evade them. And they're going to deserve it.

Re:Serves them right

[MooseTick]

" if someone deliberately tries to run you over with a car, that's vehicular homicide"

What if you are standing behind their car and they try to back out at 1mph so they can leave? Does the fact that you fail to move out of the way classify their action as vehicular homicide? And does it give you the right to shoot them because you CHOOSE not to move? I guess what is in question is what constitutes the ability to "reasonably evade them".

I'm not saying that's what happened, but the facts seem to be sparse at this point in time.

Re:Serves them right

[drinkypoo]

I'll just ignore all the pointless parts of your comment and work on the relevant bits.

What if you are standing behind their car and they try to back out at 1mph so they can leave?

Let me take this in two parts. Should they be leaving? Not if a citizen's arrest was occurring. But no, if they're backing out at 1 mph, you can reasonably move out of the way, so as a citizen that's your only option. You're not allowed to use deadly force to make a citizen's arrest, and you're not acting in self-defense if they're going 1 mph unless you're on the ground and unable to move, etc etc blah blah blah.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but the facts seem to be sparse at this point in time.

Yeah, that's why I put in the part about not being able to avoid you. That's obviously the legal obligation when possible, and it's my first choice as well. I don't want to kill anyone. I just want to be run over even less.

Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So Mr. Musk doesn't like activists on his property.

Hmmm.........

Re:Rol..!!

[youngone]

They were Journalists from the Reno Gazette-Journal. This looks to me like neither side is telling the whole truth.

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think journalists are activists.

And this is what you got from the story.

Hmmmm..........

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people climbing over fences into construction areas should always be welcomed with open arms.

Re:Rol..!!

[bloodhawk]

A journalist is an Activist now? I would imagine he doesn't like ANY trespassers on his property, no company does, it has all sorts of liability issues combined with the potential mischief that they are up too. smashed window and cut seatbelt sounds like security dragging these people from the vehicle to detain them (well within their right to do so).

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be fair, some "journalists" are actually activists. But we don't know anywhere near enough to claim that in this case.

Re:Rol..!!

[BronsCon]

Well, having read both articles, both sides are telling the same story; if neither are telling the whole truth, they're both hiding the same information and/or telling the same lies. What to make of that...

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fucked up. NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack. The security guards were not likely to be being attacked by the journalists thus the only defensible position is in the journalists favour. They were merely defending themselves from out of control security. The security guards could have taken down the license plate and a description. That is what they should have done.

Re:Rol..!!

[sexconker]

smashed window and cut seatbelt sounds like security dragging these people from the vehicle to detain them

Yes.

(well within their right to do so)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooope.

Re:Rol..!!

[silas_moeckel]

So in your world only the police should be able to do anything about crime?

They saw them committing a crime, it's reasonable for them to believe they committed/were committing a crime, they instructed them that they believe they had committed a crime and that the police had been summoned. It seems very reasonable that they detain them.

If somebody snatches some grandma's purse I have a moral obligation to stop that person if I can reasonably do so. If the law fails to allow for that it is broken and needs to be repaired.

Re:Rol..!!

[TWX]

If neither side is telling the truth then the one thing that can probably be verified is the actual location of the incident.

If the incident with the vehicle occurred on private property, then they were trespassing, and those entrusted with the defense of the private property have at least something of a degree of latitude in protecting that property.

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.

actually i disagree, i support EXISTING USA law that says you can shoot and kill without warning anyone that tries to enter your property (tresspass)
I would actually sue this security guards for every cent they own, because they did not kill criminal tresspassers on spot.

Re:Rol..!!

[ColdWetDog]

NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.

actually i disagree, i support EXISTING USA law that says you can shoot and kill without warning anyone that tries to enter your property (tresspass)
I would actually sue this security guards for every cent they own, because they did not kill criminal tresspassers on spot.

You think the guards own the Tesla factory? Do try and keep up.

And get a spelling checker while your at it.

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Tesla does have a history of being relatively loose with the truth

Re:Rol..!!

[Xenographic]

> NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.

There are two injured guards here, which neither party disputes. There are no allegations of injuries sustained by the reporters just yet (they allege that a window and a seat belt were harmed, though).

> The security guards were not likely to be being attacked by the journalists thus the only defensible position is in the journalists favour.

That is contradicted by the injuries sustained by the two guards. Neither party disputes the injuries and the police who have investigated this believed there was sufficient evidence to arrest the reporters for causing those injuries.

The guards may have also done something wrong, but we do not have undisputed evidence of this yet.

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The guards had just been assaulted, they most definitely were within their rights to detain trespassers who had just assaulted them.

Re:Rol..!!

[shilly]

Please, please tell me you deliberately mis-spelled "your" for ironic effect.

Re:Rol..!!

[shilly]

It's more than that. Dragging the driver out of the car is the equivalent of knocking the knife out of the assailant's hand. They were trying to prevent the driver from using the vehicle as a weapon for a fourth time.

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And get a spelling checker while your at it.

You're as-in you are. Your is a possessive, so what is it possessing?

Re:Rol..!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the law in *TEXAS*, not the entire country. In fact, to the best of my recollection, Texas is the *only* state where trespass on property justifies the use of lethal force. In about half the states, you are legally justified in using lethal force against someone who trespasses in your *home*, but even that isn't universal. (This legal concept is known as 'Castle Doctrine', as in 'your home is your castle', and you shouldn't be forced to retreat within/out of what *ought* to be the safest place for you.)

In some states, you have to retreat from the threat before using lethal force, even if you are in your own home when someone breaks in.

Cameras aren't magic

[Sycraft-fu]

Even with HD cameras, making out a license plate at any distance can be difficult. Try it sometime. Put your phone up at an angle a security camera might be, and see how readable things are at a distance. To do a good job of reading license plates you either need something mounted specifically for that (at a gate or something) or you need really high rez cameras, like the still cameras used at red light cameras.

General security cameras aren't much use for license plates.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Virtucon]

not that hard nowadays

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[aaron4801]

That's "a camera specifically designed to capture license plates." But that's not necessary.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Virtucon]

I got a guy who can do it.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[ArmoredDragon]

I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.

This is in contrast to traffic cameras which are positioned to best photograph license plates. They can do that better in those situations because it's a roadway and you can generally predict where a vehicle is going to be, and thus the proper placement to get a good plate ID.

But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[khallow]

But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.

Agreed. It's also supporting evidence that you were there and aware. "See judge, I copied the license plate down while speaking with the driver."

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Jack Griffin]

I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.

We're not talking mom and pop corner store here.
You are missing the point that anyone who cares about security at this level will have number plate recognition cameras all the way up the street to ensure security is maintained.
I worked for a large financial services firm a decade ago. At our purpose-built data centre we had anti tank guards, electric fences, remotely deployed spikes on the roads, and pressure sensors in the footpath to track movement. Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challenge for security operations at this level?

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[ArmoredDragon]

Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challenge for security operations at this level?

I'm going to break debate etiquette and answer that with a question: Would you just assume that your technology is going to be foolproof and work 100% of the time, and not bother to write down the plate number when the car is right in front of you?

Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?

Keep in mind that the blog also notes that this isn't the first break in by press people, rather this is simply the first time that the press people assaulted them when they noted the incident. And by the way, they were assaulted twice, the second time happened later when the safety management were driving to the scene on an ATV that the press vehicle deliberately collided into. The driver was charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal trespass, whereas the other person was just charged with criminal trespass.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[gl4ss]

it's actually very easy, since if you have a real restricted area then you restrict the entry to that area and you put the cameras there to record which vehicles go in and out. it's shit easy. if you don't bother marking off the restricted area and have no control of who enters and leaves then.. uh.. if you after that just try to security guard kidnap people they might get agitated.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[FlyHelicopters]

I worked for a large financial services firm a decade ago. At our purpose-built data centre we had anti tank guards, electric fences, remotely deployed spikes on the roads, and pressure sensors in the footpath to track movement.

The irony is that some people will read this and think you're making it up...

But I know you're not...

Nearly 20 years ago I was invited by a friend to come to his office, he worked on the 10th or so floor of an office building, while there he asked his boss if he could take me downstairs.

I wasn't sure what that meant, but he assured me it was pretty cool. In the basement, they had a massive data storage facility that I was told stored every detail of every bill and customer record of the company for the past 2 decades (this was a large Fortune 500 company).

It was secured behind a large walk through steel vault door that looked like it belonged in Wargames, on either side of the door were two armed guards with M-16 rifles in body armor. (in fairness, they probably were AR-15s, but whatever).

I had to sign a form that indicated I was not to take pictures or touch anything, they photographed me and copied my ID and warned me that I would be watched and if I touched anything, I'd be detained and searched.

They were not smiling when they said it either, but it was a massive underground computer and records room that was pretty cool, if not nearly as neat looking as the movies make such things out to be.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[khallow]

Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?

Why would you assume that a driver who happens to be a member of the press is a perfect driver who will always look behind themselves when they back up? The same measures, namely, not being behind a running vehicle, would protect them from a driver who is not paying attention as one with hostile intentions.

Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the driver was charged with assault means the authorities don't believe it was accidental. In fact nothing about the story lends it self to anything being accidental. I mean you really think the driver is that bad that he not only hits a person but a very short time latter drives into an ATV. If it was an accident the driver really needs to lose their license.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[ArmoredDragon]

Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?

Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Coren22]

When you worked at this large financial services firm, was the data center currently under construction? The Tesla factory is being built, they might not have all the security gear installed yet.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[khallow]

I never implied this was accidental, though it could have started that way. A driver doesn't magically understand everything around them and in this case may not have been aware of the person behind them.

If it was an accident the driver really needs to lose their license.

Sure.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[khallow]

Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.

Hindsight is not foresight. You're a security guard and confronting trespassers who happen to have a vehicle with press ID decals. Why assume in the absence of any evidence aside from press decals which might not even belong to a real paper that they are members of the press?

And as we see, it wasn't a good idea to assume that they would be good drivers no matter what rationalization you choose to accept.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[ArmoredDragon]

Hindsight is not foresight.

Which is exactly why I asked (and OP still hasn't answered) why you would just assume that your technology is foolproof and captured the plate information anyways. Seriously only a moron would do that.

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Jack Griffin]

Would you just assume that your technology is going to be foolproof and work 100% of the time, and not bother to write down the plate number when the car is right in front of you?

I'm not arguing against also writing the plate down, I'm arguing that any decently secure facility won't just have mom and pop security cameras and high angles that can't read a car plate. Maybe the security is a bit more Mickey Mouse in that neck of the woods, but here, most carpark buildings have plate recognition cameras, surely Elon can afford some?

Re:Cameras aren't magic

[Jack Griffin]

Good point, however I would assume the build of something like this would go:
1. Site work
2. Services (electrical/plumbing etc)
3. Structural assembly
4. Roads, gates, locks on doors, security etc
5. Internals, fittings, sensitive stuff
The press/competition would only be interested in step 5, which is why you get your security in at step 4 to mitigate this risk.

Judgement before facts

[Okian Warrior]

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.)

Re:Judgement before facts

[taustin]

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.

My thought exactly. Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada. That makes it pretty iffy as to whether or not the private security had any legal right to detail them at all. If they can't make a case for a misdemeanor - and used the magic words "You're under arrest" - then the security guards could be looking at unlawful imprisonment charges.

In theory.

As you say, we don't know shit at this point.

Re:Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them. In an effort to be as fair as possible to the RGJ reporters involved, I referred to only the RGJ article when making this assessment; their own publication paints them in a negative light using the county sheriff, who arrested the driver and charged him with battery with a deadly weapon, as a source.

I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then. And even if you are correct and the security agents "broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt", the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Fearing for his life does not allow you to intentionally reverse into someone (unless you're being fired upon perhaps). If you legitimately fear for your life in that situation and you can leave you do so. You do not throw the vehicle in reverse and run someone over before fleeing.

Re:Judgement before facts

[myowntrueself]

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.)

Is this one of those states where if you are in a place where you are lawfully entitled to be and you fear for your life you can use deadly force and get away with it with no questions asked? Like in Florida.

Re:Judgement before facts

[lgw]

I don't think these were security guards - I think the "safety managers" may have been just that: construction personnel who oversee safety on the construction site. If you enter any modern construction site without proper safety equipment, someone on staff will certainly confront you, probably in a way that seems aggressive, as shouting is the norm on a site.

If they "breaking the window and cutting the safety belt" happened before the vehicular assault, that's clearly them in the wrong, but if they just were recording license plate then that's fine.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go against Tesla, they have the most money and should be easier to extort. On the other hand, the Democrats are going to lie to your face in another hour or so, and most of you dopes fell for it twice already... How stupid are you idiots? Just because Hillary wants to get even with Bill is no reason to turn the country over to Muslim extremists. At least Trump is not going to let the ragheads in ahead of the Mexicans. Max knows this. HILLARY IS LIAR!
Bengahzi

Re:Judgement before facts

[dunkindave]

Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada.

Not sure about California, but in Nevada trespassing is a misdemeanor, per NRS207.200: "Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, (b) willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor" and "A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods (c) fencing the area" (FYI, NRS 200.603 deals with spying into homes)

Also note the part about burglary. It can be argued that deliberately entering to take pictures of proprietary items constitutes burglary so this could be treated as a felony.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

If what has been reported is to believed from Teslas side, it won't likely matter.

If the journalists were passed authorized boundaries, i.e. trespassing, they're seriously screwed. The 2 journalists commandeered a vehicle not theirs, and then vehicularly assaulted an employee in it. Even if a fraction of this is true, and at most they did was trespass, 1 and or both of them, are toast for probably a good while. There isn't a 'freedom of the press' situation where these 2 will get off 'scot free'.

Willful or not, they'll still be liable since they were trespassing, which, at this point and time, seems very hard to dispute. Yes, we need the other side, and the Sherrif's side, but this still doesn't look good on the 2 journalists, or the paper they work for.

Re: Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary may be a liar, but you have revealed yourself to be an idiot.

Re:Judgement before facts

[jrumney]

Exactly - either side's action could be reasonable if the other side's action came first. It depends entirely on the order of events, which we don't know enough about.

Re:Judgement before facts

[phantomfive]

I'm basing my assessment on the information available

That's your problem. Accurate information is almost never available in news stories.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Rockoon]

That's your problem. Accurate information is almost never available in news stories.

and making stuff up is better than reported information?

Re:Judgement before facts

[phantomfive]

and making stuff up is better than reported information?

No

Re:Judgement before facts

[viperidaenz]

Trespass in Nevada is a misdemeanor under "NRS207.200Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing."

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that only work if you're white or have a white-sounding name?

Re:Judgement before facts

[Trailer Trash]

I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then.

On Slashdot, that's a given. Hell, it's a given with one article, how much more two of them?

Re:Judgement before facts

[khallow]

I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them.

There may have been more than one security guard involved.

the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.

I don't buy that here since even with the facts we know, the event could have happened in numerous ways. There seems to be a reasonable case that the reporters were committing trespassing, but that is not a felony.

We'll just have to see what happened. It could have been a straight forward case of assault and battery by the driver with the broken window and cut seat belt either not happening or done by the reporters afterward. Or it could be that a security guard assaulted the reporters first who then attempted to flee being unaware of a second guard behind the vehicle. Evidence on the scene should quickly narrow down who did what.

Re:Judgement before facts

[SuperKendall]

A "reasonable driver" would not be trespassing at a secure facility taking photos. That is the "circumstance" on which all is based, and anything that happened to them was fully justified based on that fact alone.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?

Re: Judgement before facts

[phantomfive]

Do you have a better source available?

No.

Every time I've known the true story behind a news article, the news article has been wrong.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

Well, we have reports from both sides. Those reports agree with each other, the reporters are at fault. You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

(Of course, *you* are welcome to make judgements any time.)

I judge Bill Gates to be the culprit. I have no reason to say so, but people claim him to be evil and blame him for lots of stuff he isn't responsible for, so why not this too?

Re: Judgement before facts

[khallow]

As I said earlier, we'll just have to see when the actual evidence comes out. I don't agree that we have reports from both sides. The reporters' stories are absent.

You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.

And maybe they are. I don't see that mentioned in the currently linked stories.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Forgefather]

The thing is that regardless of whether or not they were attacked by the security staff they were in the act of trespassing. If they are trespassing and refuse to be detained by the security staff then the security staff should do what they are hired to do and remove the trespassers. You can't claim that you were assaulted by an angry homeowner wielding a baseball bat if you were in the process of robbing him.

Further more I believe that any harm caused in the commission of a crime is automatically elevated to a felony count. Since they were in commission of criminal trespassing (something no one seems to be disputing) then any harm brought to the security staff is immediately felony assault.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

Of course, when the news organization is presenting third-party information. In this case, both sources were party to the incident being reported; first-party sources are where the true story comes from.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

Re: Judgement before facts

[khallow]

Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit. Tesla could say more because they sound like they're on considerably stronger legal grounds (their guards sound like they committed some errors, but aside from being in the way, not to an extent to materially affect the actions of the driver who was hitting things).

Re: Judgement before facts

[Registered Coward v2]

Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?

Slashdot. Everything on it is factual and unbiased...

Re: Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

On one side is Tesla and on the other side is the photographer. The newspaper is a biased third party, but their biases are more complicated than you might think, given their own potential liability.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

LULZ. There is so much irony in your post that I can only assume you're going for a +5, Funny. I hope.

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

You're forgetting the Sheriff who arrested one of the photographers. I'm also quite acutely aware of how complicated the newspaper's biases are; the photographer who was driving the van (e.g. the one who was arrested) was acting as their agent, in their behalf. Why, then, would they publish an article heavily slanted against their photographer and, thus, themselves, if Tesla was in the wrong?

Re: Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit.

And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.

Re:Judgement before facts

[BronsCon]

If what has been reported is to believed from Teslas side, it won't likely matter.

Well, given that RGJ's published account of the events agrees with Tesla's, I'm leaning in that direction.

Re:Judgement before facts

[taustin]

There may be another law that handles it differently, but it sounds like it is feasible to make a citizen's arrest for trespassing. However, the "cutting the seat belt" thing is a bad idea on a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor, if it happened before the vehicular assault. Waving a knife around that close to someone while, I have no doubt, screaming threats at them is not reasonable force for a misdemeanor. It is, however, entirely reasonable after the (felony) vehicular assault.

We have no idea what actually happened, or in what order, and we won't ever find out from the press.

Re: Judgement before facts

[khallow]

And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.

Note that we don't actually hear the story from the reporters' perspective.

Re: Judgement before facts

[shilly]

And given the reporters work for a newspaper, which would have a direct commercial interest in publishing any exculpatory account they could offer, I think it's reasonable to infer that they acted wrongly and know it. Or they'd have been handed the bully pulpit.

Re: Judgement before facts

[khallow]

As I already noted:

It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit.

Re:Judgement before facts

[ruir]

Sure you can. It is has not been the first time robbers have called the cops for being injured in the crime scene in the UK. How fucked up is that...that is another matter.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem though. In most places, as a citizen, I don't have the legal ability to detain somebody. Security does not either. That's called vigilantism. This is seen all the time. If you work security at a store, somebody steals something, and they run, you aren't allowed to chase them down. If you do catch them and hold them, likely you won't be charged with anything, but if that person sues you, you have very little legal grounds to stand on and better hope for a sympathetic jury. Now if security is trying to remove them, that's fine. But if the people were at the point of leaving, and security was becoming violent at trying to stop them, this is no longer clear cut what was legal and what wasn't. I live in Colorado, we have the make my day law. If somebody breaks into my house, I'm legally allowed to shoot them dead. But if I shoot them in the back as they're trying to flee, even if they're in my house, I'm going to be tried and convicted for murder. Just because somebody else is committing a crime doesn't give you permission to commit a crime unless the crime they are committing could lead to injury or death of yourself.

Now, to be clear, with this being the way how our legal system works, I don't entirely agree with. I feel that the legal system attempts to be too much "letter of the law" even though our system is architected much more as "spirit of the law". Anybody who wants to argue this, please remember the importance of case law in trial, and how case law has no place in a "letter of the law" system.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Holi]

The one problem with that is the RGJ employees were not lawfully entitled to be there. They would not get any SYG defense.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Holi]

And the UK's laws have exactly what to do with trespassing in Nevada?

Re:Judgement before facts

[Holi]

Actually no, citizens arrest is a very real thing, and in most states allows you to detain someone as long as you use the minimum force required.

Re: Judgement before facts

[shilly]

The newspaper did, in fact, publish an article "discussing the particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit". So it may be routine legal practice, but it wasn't what they did

It had a choice between:
1 saying nothing
2 publishing an article that would have supported a defense against a lawsuit, such as one giving the journalists' account of events
3 publishing an article that would undermine any defense against a lawsuit

They chose 3. They didn't choose 1, despite your raising it here, and they didn't choose 2, despite it being in their direct commercial interest to do so.

That is a reasonable basis for inferring that the journalists have done something wrong and they know it.

Re:Judgement before facts

[myowntrueself]

The one problem with that is the RGJ employees were not lawfully entitled to be there. They would not get any SYG defense.

No, I mean the other way around. The Tesla guys appear to be being accused of throwing rocks at them etc.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

In Florida, at least the part around me, trespass on a posted construction site is a felony. Rules are different in different places.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trespassing" is usually a term used exclusively for entering onto unimproved land (forests, lawns, fields, etc) without permission or specifically against the wishes of the owner. Presumably they were attempting entry into a building of some kind which may fall under breaking and entering (more akin to entering someones home without permission) which is a completely different set of laws for better or worse.

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in the majority of states, as a citizen, legal resident, or even illegal resident, you *do* have the legal authority to detain someone in the commission of a felony. The *moment* they backed over the first security guard, and attempted to leave the scene, they were committing a felony.

Re: Judgement before facts

[khallow]

The newspaper did, in fact, publish an article "discussing the particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit".

No, they didn't. That's the point I'm making. Any newspaper could (and several probably did) have written what they did. It's impersonal and doesn't go beyond the basics of the story. Where are the statements from the reporters?

Re:Judgement before facts

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

As stated elsewhere in the comments, it was the police that broke the window and cut the seatbelt

Safety manager

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Not taking sides until more info comes in. But interesting is the blog's use of the word "safety manager" for the guys who temporarily detained the journalists. So know everybody's a manager: sanitation manager (janitor), information manager (reporter), image acquisition manager (photographer) ...

Re:Safety manager

[Anonymous Coward]

To get around overtime laws...

Re:Safety manager

[jklovanc]

On many construction sites there are "safety managers". Most of their job is walking around the site making sure everyone is following safety rules. The other part of their job is documenting safety violations. They are managers because they need the authority to tell any worker on site what they need to do to follow safety rules. What would you call someone like that if not "safety manager"?

Re:Safety manager

[lgw]

I believe these were construction site workers, not security guards. Safety (including ensuring everyone on site has checked in, and is wearing safety equipment at all times) is a big deal on modern construction sites. Not waring a bright orange safety vest makes you stand out like a sore thumb, and somebody will confront you about it when the see you. The "security managers" were different people than the "safety managers" who stopped the tresspassers. If their job was "mange the safety of the construction site", the title probably makes sense.

Re:Safety manager

[TWX]

Around here at least, the use of terms like manager, superintendent, and foreman are more meaningful in the trades and in construction in general than they are in other arenas. Either the person is an actual manager that oversees people and doesn't do labor, or the person manages a specific aspect of a job and is basically empowered to stick his nose in everyones' business on that aspect, even if he's hourly, and he's not doing a general-purpose labor job.

Re:Safety manager

[Anonymous Coward]

And in Nevada, construction site "safety managers" are probably mobsters. If these reporters wouldn't have gotten away, we might never heard from them again.

Re:Safety manager

[ColdWetDog]

What would you call someone like that if not "safety manager"?

The jerk?

Re:Safety manager

[Registered Coward v2]

Not taking sides until more info comes in. But interesting is the blog's use of the word "safety manager" for the guys who temporarily detained the journalists. So know everybody's a manager: sanitation manager (janitor), information manager (reporter), image acquisition manager (photographer) ...

Title inflation. It's often easier to give someone a more impressive title and pay them less than the title warrants had they really been doing work to justify the title. That's not to say the security managers weren't managers, but I've been at enough companies that had VP's, managers, and engineers where the jobs they do aren't really what the title implies.; and have had managers (real ones) say they give employees title promotions because it is cheaper than a real promotion.

Re:Safety manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Straw boss.

Re:Safety manager

[jklovanc]

Yeah, the jerk who does things so OSHA does not close the site causing everyone to lose their jobs.

That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Louisiana when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage.
Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.
A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page.
So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Louisiana when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage.
Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.
A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a reporter for Fox News, and tomorrow's broadcast will have this as the lead story.
So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Democrat.'
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker turns of the TV to see news of his actions, and hears them scream:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I heard a similar one like that before, but it was a Republican, not a Democrat. It was much funnier.

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

That Harley biker's name? Albert Einstein.

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Forwards from racist grandpa.

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

A US Marine who is a democrat? Come on, that's stretching the bounds of credulity.

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it's still funny.

Re:That pretty much sums up the media's approach

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like this situation is limited to "left leaning" organizations, need I mention Fox News? Don't get me wrong, I hate bias reporting, but I hate ALL bias reporting. I despise gun control, but I also cringe when some of the more tenacious NRA PR people start talking like a senile old guys convinced the government is going to sneak into their bedroom while they're sleeping and install a microphone in their dentures. I'm also critical of law enforcement misconduct, but shake my head when people claim police brutality when an officer tackles and handcuffs someone running away from a crime scene. We need to discourage ALL bias reporting, not just that which we don't agree with our particular ideological viewpoints.

Probably one of those Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

They hate electric cars and will do anything to destroy the plants that make them.

Re: Probably one of those Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Addicts get violent when you try to help with their addiction, and Republicans are addicted to oil.

Re: Probably one of those Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you are one of those who would make up any story to relate it to your obsession with republicans. This is a mental disease and you should seek treatment. Seriously; I really mean it.

Re: Probably one of those Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a joke dumbass.

No one believes the journalists are crazy pro oil activists.

I mean really, are you actually that fucking dense?

Re: Probably one of those Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take a skillful writer to create a good (i.e. funny and almost but not quite believable) post mocking the Republican guy. You are neither skillful nor funny.

Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[TomR teh Pirate]

That way it could only have ended peacefully.


This message has been brought to you by the NRA.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "peacefully" you mean with someone being dead, then sure.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[Anonymous Coward]

He was being facetious to refute the argument that an armed society is a polite/safe society. I would call it trolling, but just because I disagree with his point doesn't make him a troll or prevent me from recognizing good snark.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[Anonymous Coward]

Concealed carry >>>> open carry.

The point is to not allow the perpetrators to easily calculate their chances of success/survival. It's not going to stop people that are absolutely intent on their "missions", but it does a lot to dissuade spur of the moment attacks.

For instance, it's not going to stop a drive-by. But it has a very good chance of dissuading a big hairy dude from breaking heads when some punks call his girl a ho, as he doesn't know if they're going to be pulling weapons. When there is close to zero chance of weapons involved, the big people break the heads of whomever they want. You may argue that "well it's not a death". Casualties are casualties.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[nytes]

Dead people are generally pretty peaceful.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[viperidaenz]

You're right, then the security guards would have shot the armed trespassers.

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[viperidaenz]

That's why they say "rest in peace"

Re:Reporters should have exercised Open Carry

[TechyImmigrant]

>When there is close to zero chance of weapons involved, the big people break the heads of whomever they want. You may argue that "well it's not a death". Casualties are casualties.

You describe a world that is completely unlike the world I live in.

Insane to hit people with cars knowing ....

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

According to the Telsa reports the two trespassers were told police is coming. The newspaper side does not contradict any major points, other than pointing out that a rock had damaged the windshield and the driver side seat belt was partially cut.

Seat belt could be prior damage. Not sure about windshield. A minor crack due to a pebble or something could be prior damage too. If it was some big head size rock thrown at the Jeep, then it is unlikely to be prior damage.

Any way you look at it, it is insane to run the security guards over known police were on their way. Or were they doing something even more serious and taking the fall for vehicular manslaughter, assault etc are lesser charges?

Re:Insane to hit people with cars knowing ....

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have been playing chicken, trying to intimidate the guards into getting out of the way. If they got away before the police came it would have been their word versus the security guards', and they have a newspaper to print their side.

Re:Insane to hit people with cars knowing ....

[citizenr]

>Insane to hit people

not that insane when people jump under your car

>were told police is coming

they could be told Santa was coming, wouldnt change anything. Some janitor 'manager' has no business detaining people

Re:Insane to hit people with cars knowing ....

[Megol]

Clueless much? Citizen arrest - stopping someone from leaving a crime scene even with some amount of force is okay. I don't know of any country that doesn't have some kind of support for that, guess North Korea could be one though.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism, or industrial espionage? I mean it's a big warehouse in the desert. Public don't care.

Fully fueled Jeep

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

But if you are planning to run away with police hot on your tail, it is better to be on a fully fueled Jeep. It sucks if you have to plan your escape hopping super charger to super charger station.

Elon Musk is not going to taking it lying down. Next soft update will allow you to easily access "being chased by police, plot best route using super charger" mode. Time is the essence in those situation, you don't want this buried three levels deep in menu. You want a hot one-click icon prominently in the opening screen.

Re:Fully fueled Jeep

[hawguy]

But if you are planning to run away with police hot on your tail, it is better to be on a fully fueled Jeep. It sucks if you have to plan your escape hopping super charger to super charger station.

  Elon Musk is not going to taking it lying down. Next soft update will allow you to easily access "being chased by police, plot best route using super charger" mode. Time is the essence in those situation, you don't want this buried three levels deep in menu. You want a hot one-click icon prominently in the opening screen.

You'll never out-last the police in a sustained chase, you need to out-accelerate and out-maneuver them before they have a chance to identify you and/or call in more chase vehicles or air support.

News for nerds, yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this? People? In other "news for nerds" Kim Kardashian ditched Apple and bought an Android phone.

Who gives a s**t?

But we all really know

[Timmy D Programmer]

They are excavating a spaceship, not really building a factory ;-)

RGJ seems to be very low key op

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Tried to see what kind of newspaper it was. Its cartoons all tend to be liberal. Anti gun, anti GOP mostly. But it is recycling editorials from USA Today. So all my mouse-click investigative journalism to unearth deep plot by Koch Brothers has come to a naught :-)

Re:RGJ seems to be very low key op

[mycroft822]

I live in Reno, and I think the RGJ is pretty widely regarded as just a really crappy newspaper.

Reno.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've never been, you won't get it.

And this

[cdsparrow]

Is why you use a drone, so you don't have to have those pesky safety managers even know where you are... If you're gonna trespass to take some pictures, might as well go all out and piss the FAA off too.

fact checked myself

[Narcocide]

Ok, I guess its more than I thought, roughly half of them now, notably including Nevada: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs...

Noone is above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a member of the press does not make you above the law and neither does being an "activist". Especially those particular douchebags who identify as both. I hope he enjoys his time in jail.

Not only tresspassing

[Bruce Perens]

Although trespassing is one thing they could be charged with, an industrial espionage charge might work as well. It's a federal crime.

Re:Not only tresspassing

[taustin]

Good luck convincing a jury of that. Especially if the guards broke out the window and used a knife to cut the driver out of his seat belt before the vehicular assault. Deadly force isn't an option on a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor (assuming they even made a citizen's arrest.)

Re: Not only tresspassing

[Anonymous Coward]

The magic word is "journalists". First Amendment FUCK YEAH! Untouchable, baby! Watch me steal your preciousss secrets, divulge them on the press, jerk off and come all over your faces, bitches!

Re:Not only tresspassing

[Bruce Perens]

Police have a device to break car windows that they carry all of the time. Just delete "rock" and you probably get a description of what might really have happened. The sheriff came, broke out the window, and cut the perp out of his seat.

Re:Not only tresspassing

[lucien86]

Espionage in this case would be taking the pictures and that would have happened before they ever reached the car..

Re: Not only tresspassing

[lucien86]

Espionage. Steal and reveal a companies secrets, and you've caused them deliberate harm. Jail lots of jail even if you were a 'journalist'..

Here's what happened.

[Type44Q]

I can already tell you at least some of what happened:

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.

Re:Here's what happened.

[ruir]

Finally someone with a brain here, and to the boot capable of using it...Be careful or someday you will be captured to be a subject of study. Or maybe put in a zoo.

Re:Here's what happened.

[MeNotU]

Where is the "clearly assumed they were being detained"? Are you sure it wasn't trying to flee the scene? Not saying it is likely, just not as "clear" as you seem to think it is.

Re:Here's what happened.

[david_thornley]

Being detained illegally is not grounds to use lethal force (and running someone over with a car counts). The law was on its way, so the proper thing to do is to wait quietly, talk to the officers, and perhaps take legal revenge later.

The only excuse for running over someone is that someone is currently in danger of being killed, and I can't think of any likely credible threat. Breaking a window isn't a death threat.

Quick. Which Candidates Does The RNG Endorse?

[Hartree]

That way, all the politicos on both sides here on Slashdot will instantly know whether this was paid criminal flacks masquerading as journalism or corporate thugs trampling on our right to know the truth.

tresspassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't security just shot em on sight?

A couple of thoughts

[Registered Coward v2]

Having read Tesla's, the RLG, and the LVS's accounts (which basically was the sam as the other 2), it seems to me the situation escalated to the point it got out of hand. If the guard was writing down the plate I would find it hard to justify hitting the guard with the Jeep.Given the photographer was told the sheriff was on the way it seems to me the reasonable thing to do was to wait and let the sheriff sort out what happened. I doubt the sheriff's response time would be anything but quick given Tesla's clout.

What I don't understand is why the photographer felt it necessary to climb a fence to get a picture. I've shot photos through a fence and wonder what required getting closer? A 200mm tele give you good reach even at a distance. More to the point, most companies will give journalists tours and access to a site, even though you'll get a PR dog and pony show in most cases. But, as a journalist, you need to develop sources if you think something bad is going on. Someone will generally be willing to talk, if off the record, without you needing to trespass and then try to get away. I've cold called companies to get information and it is surprising what people will tell you. You just need to start putting the pieces together, ask more questions, and build a story.

It will be interesting to see what happened as more details come out.

Re:A couple of thoughts

[ruir]

I do not believe either in the climbing the fence story, or the seat belt being being cut. It is obvious the guards were in a power trip, things got out of hand, and both sides are lying to exaggerate facts that make their side look brighter.

Re:A couple of thoughts

[oh_my_080980980]

Fact #1: the journalist was trespassing.

Fact #2: security guard was injured.

Fact #3: journalist tried to drive away after being told the Sheriff was on the way.

So who are you going to believe?

Re:A couple of thoughts

[Megol]

Obviously you make shit up and then "knows" what happened. Or in other words: you are a fucking idiot.

Re:A couple of thoughts

[pz]

Apparently the RLG has an antagonistic history with the Gigafactory. That might help fill in some of the details and motivations.

What's there to take pictures of anyway?

[DrXym]

It's just going to be some big building with a car park, roads and other facilities around it. It hardly seems worth the bother of trespassing to take photos of that.

I Dunno? STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Then why don't you just STFU? Why do people seem to feel that their complete and utter lack of knowledge on a matter makes their uninformed opinion a fact? When you know facts and details on the subject, you may want to render an opinion. But, not knowing about the subject doesn't give your baseless opinion any gravitas. Just STFU!

Seat-belt cut AFTER the "incident"?

[Chris453]

Here is a logical explanation that allows both sides to be true:

After the reporters hit the security guard, they locked the doors and refused to get out of their Jeep. The security guards then broke the window and cut the seat-belt to extract the attackers from their vehicle.

Re:Seat-belt cut AFTER the "incident"?

[ruir]

And they hit the security guard BECAUSE....? There is some flaw there genius.

Re:Seat-belt cut AFTER the "incident"?

[Chris453]

Um.. they were trying to escape to avoid the Sheriff whom was on the way? I was pointing out how both sides could be true. Since the reporters didn't dispute Tesla's side, the only discrepancy is the reporters claiming that their window was broken and the seat-belt cut. A lot of people jumped on the reporters side after that claim because they assumed that the security guards broke the window first.

I never claimed to be a genius, but you were obviously shown to be a blubbering idiot.

Re:Seat-belt cut AFTER the "incident"?

[oh_my_080980980]

Ok Potsy. The journalists were clearly at fault because, wait for it, THEY WERE TRESPASSING. So the journalists have no excuse.

Journalists or Industrial Spies

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were really journalists, why wouldn't they have just asked permission to tour the site? Doesn't add up.

i wonder what the journalists did?

[Anonymous Coward]

makez no sense for tesla to drum.up. this negative pr. so.. i wonder what the journalists did to provoke the behavior. news at 11.

Too Complicated...

[ChoosyBeggar]

...Just let the security guards get a free crack at knocking over the reporters with their jeeps and call it a day.

Shoddy defense

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't build Tesla Towers, pfft, they deserve getting trespassed.

more to come

[Anonymous Coward]

The stakes are high, getting higher, and more is to come. Serious money begets lots of nefarious activities (love that word).