Of course I am not justifying the actions of the journalists, but this is most certainly provocative behavior on part of the Tesla employees. If someone breaks into my home, I'd absolutely let them run. I'm not gonna say "Stop! Let's wait for the police" since for all I know they could be carrying a weapon. It also seems they were blocking the SUV with their ATV. I'd have gotten out of their way once they made the intention to flee the scene clear.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Journalists Trespass, Assault Tesla employees at the Gigafactory
- Thread starter yobigd20
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Gigafactory News
Of course I am not justifying the actions of the journalists, but this is most certainly provocative behavior on part of the Tesla employees. If someone breaks into my home, I'd absolutely let them run. I'm not gonna say "Stop! Let's wait for the police" since for all I know they could be carrying a weapon. It also seems they were blocking the SUV with their ATV. I'd have gotten out of their way once they made the intention to flee the scene clear.
Regardless of where the fence line is/was - running down two people with a car is just plain stupid. Fearing for your life from a security guard - really?
Maybe they thought they are building a new secret lair for Elon, so the guards were about to drop them into a shark infested swimming pool.
NO - the only reason you try to get away like that is when you KNOW you are in the wrong.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I bet the truth lies somewhere in between both version of events but the law was first broken by the trespassers, which is akin to throwing the first punch.
I like how the RJG news article ends with the tax breaks as if to imply that because taxpayer money is involved it should be open for public viewing.
Hopefully there's surveillance video of the incident. It's so easy to cover large areas with cameras these days that Tesla should get it all covered, if they haven't done so already.
I like how the RJG news article ends with the tax breaks as if to imply that because taxpayer money is involved it should be open for public viewing.
Hopefully there's surveillance video of the incident. It's so easy to cover large areas with cameras these days that Tesla should get it all covered, if they haven't done so already.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Or you don't want pictures deleted off your camera, obtained only due to illegal actions on your part.
Methinks one too many action movies on the part of the driver, coupled with adrenalin running high due to illegal actions ... resulting in a lot of bad judgment.
My thought as well. Between the surveillance footage and description of the suspects and their car there was absolutely no reason for the Tesla employees to detain them. The police already had ample evidence to go off of if need be.
According to the newspaper article, "a rock had been used to shatter the driver’s-side window and the driver’s-side seat belt had been cut in half." So, ya, I can imagine a number of scenarios that you'd fear for your life with those variables in the mix.
Again, I'm not defending the journalists. But there's a lot of details left out from both accounts.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
But they don't say in the article if the window was smashed after employees were hit - I can see that happening if they're trying to stop the driver from hurting more people. And if that driver refuses to get out of a running vehicle, i could see the seatbelt being cut. If, in fact, the seatbelt was cut during the incident. It would take awhile to saw through a seatbelt.
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Forgotten is that this is a $5 Billion facility. Industrial espionage must be taken seriously, so if someone shows up, taking pictures, you must take steps to protect your intellectual and private information. Other auto and tech companies would love to know everything that Tesla is doing in their brand new, state of the art facility.
The security had no way of knowing if these people were working for the press, or were international spies, trying to steal secrets worth millions to their competitors.
It looks like security was just trying to keep the people from running away, with all their secret information, until the authorities could arrive and sort out the issue.
All the photographer needed to do was to remain calm and wait for the authorities to arrive and it would have been sorted out. Trying to run probably enraged the security, and had them envisioning a worst case scenario.
The security had no way of knowing if these people were working for the press, or were international spies, trying to steal secrets worth millions to their competitors.
It looks like security was just trying to keep the people from running away, with all their secret information, until the authorities could arrive and sort out the issue.
All the photographer needed to do was to remain calm and wait for the authorities to arrive and it would have been sorted out. Trying to run probably enraged the security, and had them envisioning a worst case scenario.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
They will be completely at fault for hitting them with a vehicle regardless of whether the Tesla employees were attempting to block their vehicle with their bodies. That is not a relevant consideration in determining fault.
And it's not assault to pursue and detain someone who has trespassed on your property regardless of the point where you catch them. There's no safety zone for the culprit to flee to, such as beyond your property line. It seems you're suggesting that once they make it out, you have turn around and go home. There's no such law.
Lastly, it's only an assault if you use excessive force in catching him or detaining him. It doesn't matter where that takes place. But it's perfectly legal to detain a trespasser on your property or after he exits the same. It's wrongful arrest or detainment if you do so to someone who has not trespassed or committed a crime.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
There's a lot of discussion already about it in the Jalopnik article. The security guards (or anyone really) do to have the right to detain you if they directly witnessed you commit a crime (in this case trespassing). It is called a citizen's arrest. If however, it was found out later that you did nothing wrong, you can sue the person for false arrest.
The only reason most security guards would avoid doing that is they are worried about that liability, but in general it is not illegal to do so. They are also not required to do the citizen's arrest on private property and they can use reasonable non-lethal force to detain you.
We do not know the sequence of events, but I find it highly unlikely the security guards smashed the windows and slashed the seatbelt of the journalists before they hit one of them. Their goal was simply to detain them, so having the ATV or a person in the way was enough, no need to get them out to the car before the police have come.
The only reason most security guards would avoid doing that is they are worried about that liability, but in general it is not illegal to do so. They are also not required to do the citizen's arrest on private property and they can use reasonable non-lethal force to detain you.
We do not know the sequence of events, but I find it highly unlikely the security guards smashed the windows and slashed the seatbelt of the journalists before they hit one of them. Their goal was simply to detain them, so having the ATV or a person in the way was enough, no need to get them out to the car before the police have come.
Last edited:
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
This is an important point. If they are illegally taking pictures of protected information. Tesla has all right to forcibly detain them and stop get the pictures. Especially if they were press since publishing them could be very damaging.
A home invader is a slightly different circumstance. These Tesla employees were security guards so they were doing their jobs. They didn't have the right maybe to tackle them and handcuff them (they didn't do that) but they did have a right to ask the journalists to wait for the police since they broke the law. If they blocked in their truck that's fine. If no physical threats were made by security then they had nothing to fear.
This is highly jurisdiction dependant. Trespass is a misdemeanor and in many locations citizen's arrest is only lawful in the case of felonies. It appears that in Nevada it is permissable for any crime.
This is, in fact, highly unlikely to be legally relevant in any US jurisdiction. There really isn't any crime of "illegally taking pictures of protected information." Trespass is itself a crime, taking pictures while trespassing doesn't change anything about it. Attempting to confiscate or destroy the property of a trespasser is not protected by law in any location I'm aware of.
Perhaps because Tesla security never saw the drone, or if they did they were unable to identify who was flying it since that person was well outside Tesla's property.
I do not know what the laws are in Nevada about flying a drone over private property it may be allowed above a certain altitude.
The issue of drones flying over the Fremont factory was extensively discussed in another thread.
You don't own the airspace over your property. You can't charge helipcopters with trespass for hovering over your property nor drone operators. There is some ambiguity in altitudes under 83 feet or between 400 and 500 feet, but drones operating in a range of 83 feet to 400 feet are almost certainly not subject to trespass charges. Up to 83 feet above your property there is a Supreme Court case that asserts property rights. There are some local and state laws that limit what you can do and there are other potential statutes that might affect what you can photograph (taking pictures through windows not ordinarily visible and so on).
Here's a section of the NV law:
NRS: CHAPTER 207 - MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES
NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(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. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
(There's more specific stuff in 2 and 4 ...)
So, taking pictures could affect things as that could be the thing that makes it trespass, because even if the signage wasn't clear, if Tesla had previous made "no pictures" clear to the journalists, it could be covered by the "vex or annoy" clause.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't think that is true. What I have seen is that citizen's arrest is always allowed if you directly witness a misdemeanor. However, for felonies, it is not required for you to be a direct witness. So the criteria is different, but being able to make the arrest is not.
Edit, Looks like there 10 states that require a felony for a citizen's arrest, but a vast majority follow the above (including Nevada, as relevant to this thread):
http://solutions-institute.org/tools/citizens-arrest-laws-by-state/
Googling it, North Carolina does not allow citizen's arrest at all, but for states that do, they seem to follow the above.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer and this was only from a few minutes of Google.
Last edited:
Nice try! Taking pictures is a legitimate business purpose for the press. The fact that Tesla might be annoyed by it isn't going to make it trespass or qualify that as the intent of the reporters. Even if the law could be construed that way, the first amendment would render it unconstitutional. Furthermore, a flyover is not "upon the land" or "unto any building."
- - - Updated - - -
I promise you that it varies by jurisdiction. For example, here is Ohio:
States that my out-of-date textbook identifies as felony only include: Arkansas, Kentucky, Lousiana, Massachusets, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Wyoming. As you noted, other states allow arrest in misdemeanor cases only where the crime was personally witnessed, which could rule out the guys who showed up later in the ATV.
Some states are ambiguous, like Pennslvania, where there is no law on the books. Under common law, the only misdemeanor you can arrest for would require "breach of the peace." There are also going to be states where you can technically arrest but are prohibited from using force to detain.
- - - Updated - - -
I promise you that it varies by jurisdiction. For example, here is Ohio:
States that my out-of-date textbook identifies as felony only include: Arkansas, Kentucky, Lousiana, Massachusets, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Wyoming. As you noted, other states allow arrest in misdemeanor cases only where the crime was personally witnessed, which could rule out the guys who showed up later in the ATV.
Some states are ambiguous, like Pennslvania, where there is no law on the books. Under common law, the only misdemeanor you can arrest for would require "breach of the peace." There are also going to be states where you can technically arrest but are prohibited from using force to detain.
Similar threads
- Article
