Journalists Trespass, Assault Tesla employees at the Gigafactory

[MassModel3]

Obviously the accounts from both the Tesla blog and the Gazette article were carefully crafted to make each side look like the victim, while trying to make the other side look like the aggressor. Both sides have high paid legal counsel on staff and they've likely advised their clients to admit to nothing. As such, all we have is finger pointing and heresay and unless there is actual proof (video) of what happened. I' sure it's just a lot of grunting and chest pounding and it'll all get swept under the rug by the lawyers with a hefty "Just don't let it happen again."

 

[TEG]

California may ban drones from trespassing over private property | The Verge

Drone Trespassing Bill Shot Down In California - InformationWeek

Man shoots drone trespassing over his property and is arrested - Hot Air

 

[stopcrazypp]

California may ban drones from trespassing over private property | The Verge

That seems like effectively a total ban. It only allows an airspace in the area between 350 and 400ft, which I'm pretty sure would be difficult to maintain.

 

[TEG]

Drone trespassing in Oregon:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2710

 

[brianman]

Where there's demand, supply will attempt to comply. I believe all - certainly most - of us have some culpability.

Ok, I'll bite. No.

I'll go on record as saying I don't need to see any non-official, non-drone pictures of the gigafactory.

 

[Canuck]

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."

Applying the correct law has nothing to do with "Taking pictures is a legitimate business purpose for the press." It has to do with "a reasonable expectation of privacy." Tesla has a reasonable expectation that no one will trespass and take pictures. Any pictures taken from a vantage point that is not a trespass does not breach Tesla's reasonable expectation of privacy. This is the test to be applied and this is the law.

 

[brianman]

I see that Andrew Barron has been charged WITH battery.

His defense should be:

"I was at the Gigafactory. I was trying to charge A battery."

"A batteries take too long."

 

[AudubonB]

:biggrin:. But if I had written a A battery I'd be charged with stuttering.

 

[wdolson]

It appears that they were not charged with trespass -- in fact the other journalist was apparently not charged at all. It is a bit surprising because I think the trespass charge is a no brainer. I'm guessing they didn't write it because trespass is more or less treated like jaywalking -- technically illegal but rarely cited except in conjunction with other charges.

Battery with a deadly weapon is a very serious felony charge, probably so serious that it is unlikely to stick (I'd imagine it will either plea down to simple battery or less). In addition to self-defense, they might argue that there was no intent to harm (the guy jumped in front of a moving vehicle in the hopes that the driver would stop in time).

In many jurisdictions, if you trespass on someone's property and because of that, somebody gets hurt, it's classified as criminal trespass and ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the degree of injury and apparent intent. Each state has differences to the laws of course.

Assault with a deadly weapon can be a fairly serious charge, though in this case I doubt they would throw the book at the guy. He's probably charged with a fairly low level assault charge like a class C felony or high level misdemeanor. They will probably offer him a plea bargain for reckless endangerment or something like that. These days most cases don't go to trial, prosecutors charge as much as they can get away with, then they pressure the perpetrator to take a plea bargain. Some innocent people end up railroaded that way, but in this case, the guy would probably be smart to get a good defense attorney and plead down to some kind of misdemeanor.

 

[Lanny]

The Reno Gazette Journal is disputing Tesla's account of the incident in a story published last night.

Here is their side of the story: RGJ attorney: Tesla guards roughed up journalist

-Lanny

 

[wdolson]

The Reno Gazette Journal is disputing Tesla's account of the incident in a story published last night.

Here is their side of the story: RGJ attorney: Tesla guards roughed up journalist

-Lanny

This is turning into a sort of Rashoman situation. I note the Tesla press release goes into detail about an employee being knocked down by the Jeep and getting cut up. The RJG account does not even mention this person. They only mention the two guards with the ATV. So the RJG story has two Tesla employees involved and the Tesla story has three.

It appears both stories have the Jeep and ATV getting into some kind of accident, but police have probably investigated and there may be some evidence of which vehicle was the aggressor. It sounds like this happened on a dirt road or off road, that would probably leave tire tracks which corroborate one or the other story. According to the Tesla account, two employees were injured, one guard had minor injuries and the other sounds like he needed at least an ER visit and some stitches. There would be evidence of that too.

I believe the driver is charged with a felony, so the police were probably pretty careful collecting evidence.

It's possible the RJG side of the story is more truthful, but right now both sides are pointing fingers and telling conflicting stories. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle between the two stories. It's quite possible that both sides did some wrong.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It's possible the RJG side of the story is more truthful, but right now both sides are pointing fingers and telling conflicting stories. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle between the two stories. It's quite possible that both sides did some wrong.

Tesla lies*, journalists lie*, criminals lie, other people lie. Because someone is telling a story does not affect reality in any way.

* Mislead, twist the facts, whatever.

 

[LetsGoFast]

The letter doesn't deny that they were trespassing (saying "even if they were trespassing"), so that seems to be about the only specific fact in common between the two reports. It is going to be important if the car hit the security guy during the confrontation where the window was broken and the seatbelt was cut or in a different earlier confrontation. I suspect there will be room for both stories to be essentially correct. The journalists were trespassing and drove recklessly into a person on foot and the security guards were violent and escalated the situation.

 

[yobigd20]

Tesla guards allegedly smashed journalists car window during Gigafactory incident | The Verge

claims that the RGJ's reporters, Jason Hidalgo and photographer Andy Barron, had parked the newspaper's Jeep in a "publicly accessible" area overlooking Tesla's factory before getting out of the car to take photos. He says they were then confronted by security guards who demanded Barron's camera and followed the pair back to their Jeep. The guards then allegedly rammed the car with an ATV and forced it to a stop, before one guard jumped on the hood of the car and another smashed the driver's side window with a large rock.

wow. big difference in story. for some reason, I believe the journalist's story over Tesla's.

 

[Yuri_G]

Tesla guards allegedly smashed journalists car window during Gigafactory incident | The Verge



wow. big difference in story. for some reason, I believe the journalist's story over Tesla's.

Yeah, it's not like either party is trying to spin the story to put themselves in the best light. Come on.

The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[bonnie]

So far there is just one arrest. That's the one fact we know, the only fact we know.

I doubt law enforcement goes by media stories (Tesla & RGJ included). I'll be interested to see how this all plays out.

 

[rage_777]

I also believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Tesla security probably got to over zealous with their law enforcement skills, but the RGJ employees were obviously on Tesla's property. Quote from their own article:

In an interview on Oct. 9, Storey County Sheriff Gerald Antinoro said the two journalists “went past a no trespassing sign” and then attempted to flee when the security guards tried to detain them.
“He either hit or almost hit one or more of the security officers,” Antinoro said.

 

[MassModel3]

And the plot thickens...

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the RGJ accounts than the Tesla accounts, though the truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between. When the real police arrived on scene, I can see them siding with the Tesla security personnel over the reporters since uniformed security are in the same general business as law enforcement. Plus, there were scrapes on one of the guards that corroborates their story.

I'm certain the guards were over zealous and took things further than needed, but that by no means absolves the reporters of any misdoings. It sounds like they don't explicitly deny the trespassing claim, but the specifics of the events (rock & knife, vehicle impacts, guard getting scraped up) and why those events took place is what will be needed to resolve this. Unfortunately, without video or third party witnesses, it's just a bunch of biased parties pleading victim, none of which will help clear anything up.

 

[LetsGoFast]

Tesla guards allegedly smashed journalists car window during Gigafactory incident | The Verge



wow. big difference in story. for some reason, I believe the journalist's story over Tesla's.

The claim that the cars were parked in a publicly accessible area is not at odds with the claim that they were trespassing. Tesla version had them climbing through a marked fence after they parked the car.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Tesla report fails to mention anything that might be seen as aggression by the guards and the lawyer's statement fails to mention anything that might be seen as aggression by the journalists. However, I think that is expected as lawyers will not allow commenting in a way that would be negative to their clients. With no witnesses and no video (presumably) it is all up to what either side says and the evidence. The sequence of events is very important too (did journalists hit security guards first, or afterwards).