Pixiq

Some assaults, a couple of batteries, possible false imprisonment, and throw in a little intentional infliction of emotional distress to round it all out.

Good times.

It is interesting that on the House of Blues web page patrons can upload photos they have taken at different events. They can then order official HOB products with their pictures.

http://www.houseofblues.printroom.com/pro/houseofblues/

I wonder if we can order a coffee mug with a picture of the photographer being assaulted by the security guard.

Video has been pulled, but there are some comments from a member of the flikr group “photography is not a crime” hat the security guard has been arrested.

Why was the video pulled?

What “terms of violation” did it have?

“Terms of Use Violation” my rear!

Charles – that would be HILARIOUS to upload some stills from the video to their little photo gallery – “and here’s where the guard stole my camera, here’s the one where he assaulted me.”

To a lesser extent, would be funny to see similar things on the new Starbuck’s Flick channel: “Here’s the barista yelling at me to not take this photo…”

I want to know what TOS the video actually violated.

Or, more likely, that House of Blues wanted YouTube to take it down and they gave in.

Typically a takedown request from a company shows up as a privacy request, and youtube gives the owner an opportunity to re-edit it as happened in the Maguire property video that was discussed extensively on flikr. I suspect that it was the graphic violence clause that caused it to be pulled (from the girl being punched flat on the ground). In both cases the video(Maguire Property and House of Blues) is legal but youtube declines to host it. This is what happens when one company gets what amounts to a monopoly on content. They get to be the gatekeeper. Even if the video is legal, it may not necessarily get shown. Unfortunately, the “think of the children” crowd will prevent any real competitor from appearing. For example, yahoo video has an explicit permission clause and a no-violence clause similar to youtube.

The video is back up thanks to this site!

http://www.buzznet.com/groups/photographyislegal/video/78848541/

Now see, this is the sort of situation where I’d have no problem with the citizen TASERing the asshole security guard beating her. Or one of her friends doing it for her.

These asshats need to learn some fear of the people they want to push around.

Another link to the video-

http://www.nycphotorights.com/2009/10/house-of-blues-security-assaults-f...

It’s a mugging! Robbery, assault and battery, what else??

Bullies and women abusers. Fucking pigs!

What that video shows is totally outrageous and criminal. Throw their asses in the slammer for a good long time.

That the lady knew her rights — it was great hearing that come from a random citizen, separate from the thuggery.

I just watched the rest of the video. The insecurity guards snatched the other woman’s camera, who was recording the assaults! She got it back, thankfully.

Nothing on this story on google or yahoo news.

The local media seems to be on this. WGN ran a piece on it, which I’ll see if I can dig up a weblink of, and CBS is following it too (though I don’t know if they’ve run something on the air yet).

While I’m not a huge fan of live shows, I can tell you right now I will never step foot inside the House of Blues in Chicago, or any other city, after this shameful episode.

Thank you buzznet! When it comes to videos like this, you might as well just upload them to one of the no-name sites and just let the blogosphere and Twitter pass it on – Youtube, like the rest of Google – is a sellout.

I really hope this gets picked up in the media.

But those girls were very vulgar with the guards. And we don’t know what they did to make him angry. And he has the right not to have his photo taken. I would have been mad too if they took my photo without my permission.

When it’s all said and done, She’ll have the resources to purchase numerous cameras.

@PMC: You are incorrect. If a photographer is standing on public ground (such as a city sidewalk) they can take a picture of anything they can see. If you are visible from that public location, then they can take a picture of you. You can be mad if you want, but you can’t do anything about it. You can’t take the camera, you can’t delete the photos and you certainly can’t assault the photographer. As to the girls being vulgar, I would be vulgar too if someone just stole my camera (and legally it is theft), although my first reaction would be to call the police right then and there rather than try to get it back from someone that big. The “right” to privacy only exists where there is an expectation of privacy, for example in a fenced yard or in a private dwelling.

@Shaneequa: Not clear. Comments on the flickr goup seem to indicate that the guards were off duty, which, if true, would give the house of blues the ability to disown them. Thus any financial compensation may be limited. On the other hand they are still wearing hob uniforms, so hob might still be liable. The wonderful US court system will have to figure that one out.

@PMC must a friend of the guy,,, I bet a very good friend,,, maybe a partner in crime as well… If you are in public you pic is taken many times without you even knowing… there is no privacy while you are in the public,,,

This is terribly disturbing and apparently far too common. As I watched this video I thought it appeared to be nothing more than street crime perpetrated by criminals.

SUE the House of Blues, Those girls were assulted by there own security on a public sidewalk. I hope they take the guards and the house of blues to court.

But those girls were very vulgar with the guards.

Are you saying that swearing at someone who stole your camera entitles that someone to then assault you?

And we don’t know what they did to make him angry.

Do you believe that someone who is angry is entitled to steal cameras?

And he has the right not to have his photo taken.

Not in public he doesn’t. Look it up.

Chicago photographers should head down to the HoB en mass and take lots, and lots, and lots of pictures of the guards. And Tiffany Bryant and the woman in question should absolutely sue the shit out of both the guard and the venue, and press charges against the guard.

brings up memories of over a zealous Wilton Manor security guard who killed JACO PASTORIUS.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Jaco_Pastorius

Security should be licensed, trained professionals not big fat goons beating on girls. These TWO guards should be arrested for assault. Civil suit would result in nothing because they can’t have 5 cents to their name.

Here is the Chicago HOB phone number:

1 ( 312) 923 – 2015 I have already sent them an E-mail but I doubt they will respond to it.

If Chicago had conceal carry, that bald-headed asshole of a security guard would NOT have tackled that poor girl to the ground.

@PMC – Check the law before you post misinformation. Nothing can be further from the truth. I can take a picture of anyone or anything* if I am standing on public property.

The so-called “right” not to have your picture taken if you are standing on public property with no expectation of privacy simply DOES NOT EXIST!

The law is very different from what you ASSUME it is. And we all know what they say about people who ASSUME.

*except certain military facilities which House of Blues obviously is NOT!

@appleuzer: no, he would have shot her instead

The car in the first screenshot is a taxi, not a cop car. (I’ve accidentally signaled at far too many cop cars, thinking I was hailing a blue and white taxi like the one in the photo.)

Its now on the nbc chicago website:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/house-of-blues-hanson-assault-...

The security guard has been arrested for misdemeanor battery.

Why do they do it? First of all, why does a security guard become enraged at someone taking a picture, and what makes them think that they can seize a camera? What is going through this guy’s mind?

@Ken: No one knows. But there is a lot of general ignorance about the issue. My own brother told me that no one was allowed to take a picture of anyone else without permission. He was quite surprised to find out that he was wrong. And yet, the general public is less that outraged over the fact that the Bush government authorized and the telcos participated in warrantless wiretapping.
I think the general discomfort from public photos stems from the fact that the people photographed feel that they may be portrayed in a less than flattering light. That a friend or acquaintance may see them in less than perfect hair/clothes, etc. If you browse the flikr groups, you find incidents of not only security guards and cops, but also of photographers being threatened by arbitrary people on the street because of street photos.

Back in the 60s there was a psych experiment that set up a fake prison, dividing students up into guards and prisoners. The experiment had to be stopped because it got out of hand. When you give that sort of power to an individual, unless they are given training on how to handle it (and many are not) then they get out of control. We have recently had a set of Taser deaths up here in Canada, and some of the comments have been that many of our police officers do not have the training to defuse critical situations. There was a recent report of a police candidate in the north east USA that was turned down because he scored to high on his exams. They claimed he would be too ‘bored’ with routine patrol. Security guards are low-wage, low training positions. They are even more unlikely to have the appropriate training.

Power trippers, @Ken. Bullies get a thrill from controlling others, that’s what I see in this vid. A bully with a posse who thinks he’s in control of the situation.

But when you’re caught on-camera, none of that matters, once the moment is over.

Misdemeanor assault seems like a weak charge. What about stealing the two ladies’ phones??

That isn’t a police car in the background. That’s a Taxi.

As shitty as this all is…. Youtube has really been blowing it lately. It is inexcusable that they take down videos when they make a corporation look bad. Taking down videos due to “privacy” complaints and TOS violations are all super dubious. They are alienating their users. I’m calling for a youtube boycott. Use vimeo or any of the other video sharing sites.
Youtube blows…

Use YouTube for silly cat videos only. Real news belongs on websites that will treat it as such.

I agree. I use Vimeo myself because the videos don’t get degraded as much.

Dear Dumb F***s,

If she would have had a gun, she would not have been admitted to a concert. You cannot bring a gun to the HOB. You should worry more about your rights that were violated for the past 8 years then Chicago’s no handgun law. We can have rifles for home protection. Jesus, get a life.

Hopefully the guard will go to jail for awhile and get buttf***ed by the cop who beat the kid for having an untucked shirt and/or vice-versa.

Actually, the actions of the guard in this case makes a really good argument against conceal carry, since he’s just the type of person who makes it a dicey proposition.

On the other hand, security guards in Illinois can be licensed to carry firearms openly, so let’s be glad the HOB doesn’t have their employees do so.

This is some bullshit yo! What can i do to punish these fuckers?

As a long time patron of the House of Blues in Chicago, I can attest that this heavy-handed behavior is a regular occurance. I personally have been harrassed by these power-deluded “security” personnel for no reason on several occasions. I attempted to contact the Chicago House of Blues management on those occasions to report the harrassment/ assault, but the HOB management wouldn’t take my calls even after explaining why I was trying to call them. It’s time that the citizens of Chicago put an end to the abuse people suffer by rogue “guards” and police. I am even willing to participate in a class action suit against the HOB if any lawyer out there is interested in leading the fight.

I don’t see how concealed carry has anything specifically to do with this.

My opinion is that, if more people were to legally carry firearms, things like this wouldn’t happen as much (where I live, for example, you don’t see guards harassing people like this). The reason obviously is something like this can EASILY escalate into a shootout or other such thing. If someone trys to help the poor female the rest of the guards will start trying to beat his ass, he could start shooting the guards, etc, etc. Best just to leave people alone.

Most people that carry firearms have some sort of de-escalation training or whatnot. This situation is very difficult, however I would probably ultimately try to stop the guard from assaulting the person. If multiple guards were to gang up on me and start assaulting me, it could very well end up in a shootout, but that’s a risk you have to take rather than just let somebody get assaulted and do nothing.

I’d like to point out that she did start pushing and shoving the guard. While he may have been in the wrong in assaulting her in the first place, she didn’t help her cause by screaming and shoving the guard. I find that a lot of the reporting on this site is almost entirely biased towards one side and doesn’t look at the issues as a whole.

Mike,

I’d like to point out that if a security guard tackled me and pried my camera from my hands, I would be wailing on him with my fists.

Do you really believe security guards can go around robbing people of their personal items and not expect people to fight back?

@Mike Hawk

People have a right to defend themselves from being attacked and robbed. The fact that she started “pushing and shoving the guard” is irrelevant as she had the right to do worse.

This idiot did this on a public street? I’m a photographer and would have serious issues with this guy. One of us would have ended up hurt and I’d make sure it wasn’t me. He’s obviously nothing but a street thug who needs to be sitting in a small cement cell.

If I was a passer by and actually saw him beating some girl like this without knowing anything about what was going on I would have stopped and he would have ended up in a hospital. Using the minimum force necessary to cripple him until he could be put into a court room would be my first priority.

There’s a lot of talk here. One thing should be clear, if you ever do find yourself in an altercation with a HOB-type insecurity guard…

“A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appears to be necessary, to protect himself or herself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must ordinarily be proportionate to the threat. That is, if you believe a person is going to spit on you, depending upon the context it may be reasonable to push the person away, but it would not be reasonable to hit the person with a baseball bat.

A plaintiff may be expected to withdraw from the threat, if possible, before engaging in forcible resistance. However, if the plaintiff is in his own home and the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff’s household, a plaintiff will typically not be required to further withdraw from the threat once the plaintiff has retreated to his own home.”

I am not a lawyer, but it’s pretty clear that the ladies’ best move (stated previously by another commenter) would have been to withdraw, dial 911, file charges, and recover their cameras through the police.

Engaging physically with the HOB thugs only increased the possibility that they’d be injured or worse, and didn’t change the odds of recovering their cameras (and that apparently didn’t happen til the cops arrived, anyway?)

It might seem reasonable to fight back – but remember, these thugs had just (allegedly) criminally battered the women (and robbed them in some opinions here), and you never know what they might be packin’, especially in an urban street situation.

On the other hand, videotaping the action was entirely reasonable, to me – capture evidence, but get back so you don’t get hurt (or get charged for being involved in a melee, however unintentionally.)

It’s always better to de-escalate. However, in some states, Texas for example, you are legally entitled to use deadly force to protect or recover your property. I have no idea what the law is elsewhere.

“I am not a lawyer, but it’s pretty clear that the ladies’ best move (stated previously by another commenter) would have been to withdraw, dial 911, file charges, and recover their cameras through the police.”

What does Illinois law say about your rights to get your property back from a thief? If you no longer have that right, then self governance is a thing of the past. In Texas, we have the right to use physical force to stop someone from robbing us.

This is disgusting. That should be FELONY battery and assault! I also believe the HOB has culpability in fostering the ideas in their guards heads that using this kind of force is acceptable. If they were Off duty, why did they act in behalf (slightly) or claim affiliation with HOB? HOB needs to change their hiring practice or work with their guards. I often go over to the site, Buzznet, and am sad it happened to one of the photographers that frequents the site!

I , too, was told by Denver police to, “put the f***king camera down …I better not end up on Youtube or else” when taking pictures of a person in the street that had passed out. I am NOT a photographer and it was a cheap nonprofessional camera, I was standing on the sidewalk OUT of the way! I suppose even some police and firemen do not know the law.

Good luck to the girls and I hope they are OK physically and mentally. This is a court case all the way and I do hope they receive compensation for all they went through!

Another case of lack of training and I bet a lack of accurate training history. In training, we teach our associates to always assume that you are being taped, because you eventually will. By a TV station, a customer, a client or our own quality control.

Huge law suite comming .That guard wasnt waring anything identyfying himself as licensed security.Poorly trained Guard if that is what he is> I think he his just doorman or bouncer, not licensed guard.You cant snatch someones property away on public property way,unless he can say it was being used as weapon agaisnt him.LAW SUITE!!! thats probably why they call it house of blues,he is diffintinly going to sing the blues.