give me some space dude go intern give me some space Oh give me some ow L behind your back what up for you absolutely oh yeah very nice dude very nice enjoy the lawsuit enjoy paying for my camera too so here's the thing you pulled it out and you was starting them he attacked me it's on camera all right well we're gonna log all this in too good dude yeah buddy you're gonna learn you can't come outside and grab people man that ain't right on September 9th 2022 Joshua Roberts a First Amendment auditor and the owner of the YouTube channel called pepperoni audits was recording a video outside Dove Technologies in Florence South Carolina while he was still filming two employees from the building came out and approached him profession you can turn that off right now what was that I can't hear you you don't have my signed authorization to have my face can I have your signed authorization this guy's coming up aggressive everyone can I help you no can we can you help us yo get away from me buddy oh no dude who are you away from me dude why why are you here why are you here I suggest you leave me alone uh you're on private property uh I suggest you do something about that then and get back inside really yeah really you like going around people like this you know that's fun Mr Roberts explained to the workers that he was standing on an easement which is a designated area for public use and not on private property he mentioned that the utility poles on the property were owned by the city supporting his claim however according to the geographic information system GIS data of Florence County it did show that Mr Roberts was indeed on public property it's important to understand that the presence of utility poles on a property does not automatically mean it is open to the public in some cases the government may have acquired a utility easement which grants them permission to place utility poles on private property without changing the ownership or private nature of the property therefore it's crucial to note that relying solely on the presence of utility poles as an indicator of public property can lead to misconceptions this misconception is commonly seen within the auditor community so let me ask you a question does that give you the right to come up and grab my camera and almost break it here hey you assaulted me buddy all right call your husband yeah call your husband fat boy oh man whoa this guy's great get in tubby I'm out in public recording and you come up and grab somebody dude I'm with myself and you're about to owe me a new camera lens yeah buddy I got your name too you're gonna get it you're gonna get a nice little talking to with the the police you come back out here and touch me you won't like it assaulted out here that's about it yeah by one of their workers what will happen I was just out here taking some pictures and one of the guys came out here saying he didn't want to be filmed and he ran up to me started circling me grabbed my camera started pushing up on me and it's all videotaped you have it on video oh it's all recorded because I do want to press charges on him was there something involving a taser oh I pulled it out in self-defense when you come out at me like that and you're about to destroy my stuff and put new bodily harm to me yeah here I'm right I'm gonna pull a taser on someone Mr Roberts claims that one of the workers assaulted him by forcefully taking hold of his camera and pushing him in response he resorted to using his taser as a means of self-defense to protect both himself and his property according to section 16 3 600 of the South Carolina code an individual can be charged with third degree assault and battery if they unlawfully cause harm or attempt to harm another person while having the capability to do so the court of appeals of South Carolina clarified in the 2022 case of State versus Robinson that physical injury is not a prerequisite for assault and battery charges therefore a victim does not need to sustain visible injuries or suffer violent harm for an assault to have occurred similarly the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which holds jurisdiction over South Carolina explained in the 2019 case of United States versus Drummond that an assault conviction does not require traditional violence or the explicit threat of physical harm rather any unwanted physical contact that is deemed rude or aggressive without proper justification can be considered an assault in light of this broad definition a court could reasonably determine that the workers Act of pushing Mr Roberts constituted an offensive form of physical contact qualifying as third degree assault furthermore according to section 1611 510 of the South Carolina code it is illegal for someone to intentionally and maliciously harm or destroy someone else's personal property or belongings simply demonstrating that an individual caused damage or destruction to another person's property is insufficient the prosecution must establish that the Act was carried out with a deliberate and malevolent mental state in the 2016 case of State versus Hobart the court of appeals of South Carolina highlighted that willful is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as an action that is voluntary and intentional without necessarily being malicious on the other hand malicious refers to an act that is highly likely to cause harm or lacks a justifiable reason or excuse in this situation one could argue that the workers actions of seizing Mr Roberts's camera may meet the mental state requirement outlined in section 1611 510 justifying a conviction however it is important to note that the footage does not clearly indicate whether the camera was actually damaged and it is evident that the camera was not completely destroyed since Mr Roberts was still able to record the encounter you need to tell that guy he needs not put hands on people it's a short little fat guy oh yeah we're going to do a report on them too I just need to give this Deputy your information for me all right here I don't have an ID yeah buddy you're gonna learn you can't come outside and grab people man that ain't right is it free speech am I allowed to say stuff what do you have a freedom of speech but there's also something called breach of Peace okay I'd like to see you try that buddy those people put hands on me I'm the victim so you want you want to turn it around on me I'm not turning it around please do so what I'm telling you is you guys are known to be the biggest pieces okay in South Carolina what did I do wrong are you gonna let me talk go on ahead what I was saying is I don't need you yelling while I'm trying to talk this man that's gonna cause him to yell calls the scene you get mad he's going to get mad in the escalate okay just talk to this Deputy let me tell you something I'm allowed to say whatever the hell I want if you yell across this parking lot while you have all these people standing around that is called breach of Peace you want to try that buddy you want to try that yes I will following the workers report two deputies from the Florence County Sheriff's Office arrived at the scene to investigate the incident during their inquiry one of the deputies warns Mr Roberts that if he were to shout at the workers from across the parking lot he could be arrested for breach of Peace in South Carolina breach of peace is a crime based on common law meaning it is defined by legal precedence rather than specific statutes according to the court of appeals of South Carolina in the 1996 case of State versus Pier breach of peace is a broad term encompassing various behaviors that disrupt or threaten public order and Tranquility it refers to actions or conduct that incite violence or disturb the public peace notably actual violence is not required for a breach of peace to occur the determination of whether an act constitutes a breach of Peace depends on factors such as the location timing and proximity to other individuals similarly section 1617-530 of the South Carolina code which pertains to disorderly conduct states that engaging in disorderly or disruptive behavior in a public place or using obscene or offensive language near schools churches or public Gatherings is considered a misdemeanor offense while Mr Roberts yelling across the parking lot may seem at first glance to fall within the definitions of breach of peace or disorderly conduct the Supreme Court established in the 1964 case of Henry vs City of Rock Hill that the 14th Amendment prohibits States from criminalizing peaceful expression of unpopular views the government cannot Define a criminal offense in a way that allows convictions simply because an individual speech stirs people to Ang anger invites public disagreement or creates unrest however in the 2002 case of city of Landrum V Sarat the court of appeals of South Carolina ruled that a person could be convicted of disorderly conduct if they loudly yelled profanities insulted individuals and engaged in name-calling this decision was based on the concept of fighting words established by the Supreme Court in the 1942 case of chaplinsky Verde New Hampshire fighting words refer to words that by their very nature cause harm or provoke an immediate breach of Peace such words are not protected by the First Amendment and can be deemed criminal in Mr Robert's case although he used profanity when interacting with the workers and deputies he did not use any offensive language when shouting across the parking lot even if he had used profanity it is highly unlikely that a court would consider Mr Robert's statement that the workers would learn not to physically confront others as incitement to violence the therefore it is probable that a court would conclude that Mr Roberts's actions did not amount to a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct as his speech was protected by the First Amendment try it try it name and badge number Corporal triggers name and badge numbers rigors 236 all right go do my assault charge I need to give him you need to go talk to them and you better file charges if I'm giving you my information what's your day bro if you don't believe me you guys will get complaints and this will be all over you whatever you need to do man they have to run me first everyone they can't run the actual criminal can you go tell him go question the guy you assaulted me he's gonna conduct his investigation do you see him up there no he's not he's inside hiding what was he wearing yeah the blue shirt short uh dark hair fat so what was the call about somebody coming up here harassing employees and pulling a taser on something they tell you they circled me and surrounded me the part where they assaulted me they forgot they let that out let's play with the two gentlemen that came out and all their information is going to be entered into the report as well as your statement you gave the stuff I made them aware that yes you can view video from a public area which the roadway is public but if you cross over inside I've checked the property lines I don't need directives you go on the property you're going to go to jail if you smoke crack that's not good man all right do I get a report or something oh great this guy are you good buddy all right my name badge number beside it and your case number as well you can get a copy of the report in 35 minutes today have a good day thank you see how the cop tried to spin in and say I was in their parking lot on the day buddy I had some dude inside oh you're getting really close man oh yeah yeah I like to get close I like to talk to people can you stop no no sir I want to talk to you what's going on my friend what's up you're getting so close to me dude what's going on man dude stop approaching me sir I'm alive it's off dude give me some space dude go in turn give me some space no give me some ow but what what we're up for you absolutely oh yeah very nice dude very nice enjoy the lawsuit enjoy paying for my camera too absolutely you getting resistant arrest resisting I'm not moving well when I want to put my hands on you pulled away from me yeah because you have no right to arrest me you're under arrest you have to write the terms of approaching me you're sorry you had to write the attorney have him or president before any questions asked you decide any time to exercise these rights and not making more statements do you understand these rights I don't answer any more questions without a lawyer uh president absolutely all right you want to stand them up Sergeant Paul Morrison arrives at the scene and approaches Mr Roberts who repeatedly asks him to maintain some distance and tries to step away when Mr Roberts directs a profanity at Sergeant Morrison the sergeant forcefully brings him down to the ground and informs him that he is being arrested for resisting arrest due to his attempt to pull away in response Mr Roberts argues that he only pulled away because Sergeant Morrison had no valid grounds for arresting him according to section 16 9 320 of the South Carolina code it is while non-violent resistance can lead to a conviction in this case it's crucial to note that Sergeant Morrison never explicitly informed Mr Roberts of his intention to arrest him or took any actions that should have reasonably indicated to Mr Roberts that he was being placed under arrest consequently a court would likely determine that Mr Roberts cannot be found guilty of knowingly and willfully resisting arrest similarly it is worth noting that Sergeant Morrison lacked a valid legal basis to arrest Mr Roberts when he initially approached him in South Carolina it has long been established that individuals are not obligated to comply with unlawful arrests and they retain the right to resist such arrests the Supreme Court of South Carolina summarized previous legal precedents on this matter in the 2001 case of State vs McGowan stating that an unlawful arrest or an attempt to make an unlawful arrest is treated the same as any other non-felony assault or common assault in battery the person being unlawfully arrested or facing an unlawful arrest attempt is not obligated to submit and may defend themselves with reasonable Force however they are not permitted to exceed the level of force necessary to counteract the assault as doing so would make them the wrongdoer it is crucial to bear in mind that this legal interpretation is specific to South Carolina as other states may not recognize an individual's right to resist an unlawful arrest nevertheless in Mr Roberts's case he would have the right to resist an unlawful arrest since he merely stepped away from Sergeant Morrison without employing any physical Force there would be no question of excessive resistance if a court were to conclude that Mr Roberts was indeed resisting an unlawful arrest I got assault so here's the thing we pulled it out and you was trying them he attacked me it's on camera all right well we're gonna log all this in too good do it after being arrested by Sergeant Morrison Mr Roberts was taken to jail and went through the booking process however it seems that no criminal charges were filed against him following his release Mr Roberts took the initiative to file a formal complaint with the Florence County Sheriff's office regarding the incident in response to the complaint the department launched an internal affairs investigation which revealed multiple policy violations by Sergeant Morrison as a result Sergeant Morrison resigned from his position on September 15 2022 according to internal records Sheriff T.J Joy addressed the incident in a press release acknowledging that the internal affairs investigation had identified several policy breaches committed during the incident consequently Sergeant Morrison's employment with the Florence County Sheriff's Office was terminated Sheriff Joy also mentioned that the matter had been referred to the 12th circuit solicitor's office for review but as of the date of the statement no criminal charges had been filed against Sergeant Morrison additionally Mr Roberts claimed that Sergeant Morrison had deleted the video footage of their encounter from his camera following the incident however Mr Roberts was able to recover the footage and subsequently uploaded it to YouTube he also included a brief video that appears to have been recorded in the police cruiser after his arrest in which he alleged that Sergeant Morrison was deleting the videos the Florence County Sheriff's office has not made any public statements specifically addressing the issue of the deleted videos overall Sergeant Morrison's didn't do a good job due to his unlawful arrest of Mr Roberts without any valid reason his use of excessive force and his attempt to delete the video footage as a means of covering up his actions although Sergeant Morrison claimed he arrested Mr Roberts for resisting arrest it is evident that he arrested him simply because Mr Roberts refused to comply with his unjustified display of authority such behavior from a law enforcement officer is completely unacceptable and poses a danger to the public the response from the Florence County Sheriff's Office can be appreciated in investigating and addressing the situation however the decision to allow Sergeant Morrison to resign rather than terminating his employment is questionable and may send the wrong message about accountability the other Florence County deputies have done a better job because while one Deputy threatened to arrest Mr Roberts for breach of Peace which was unlikely to be supported by the circumstances they ultimately acknowledged Mr Roberts's right to film in public and educated the workers about his first amendment rights although they seemed frustrated with Mr Roberts at times and occasionally responded unprofessionally to his provocative remarks they eventually reached the correct conclusion and supported his right to record Mr Roberts however did a very good job because despite his aggressive and antagonistic Behavior towards both the workers and the officers which did not help the situation he consistently asserted his first amendment rights and stood up against the officer's infringements on his first and Fourth Amendment rights however his mean-spirited comments about the workers appearance were immature and kind of diminished his credibility as a professional and respectable auditor