
08/12/2025
A Guide to Understanding the Maple Lake Video Evidence / Deputy Mark Lyon
Victim in Maple Lake Grill Incident releases statement: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19PWX1Ymib/
To understand the case being made by Victim 1 in the Maple Lake Grill incident, it is essential to watch the videos in chronological order. This guide presents the evidence as it unfolded to show the full context of the arrest.
This is not just about a customer dispute. It's about a series of alleged procedural failures and contradictions that should concern anyone who believes in equal justice and professional policing.
Video 1: Who Was the Aggressor? – The Initial Confrontation
This first video provides the crucial context for what happened before the police were on the scene and appears to show a clear pattern of aggression.
▪️ A Clear Pattern of Movement: Viewers should watch one simple thing: who is advancing and who is retreating? Victim 1 is seen consistently backing away, creating distance and moving toward his motorcycle to leave. The owners are seen consistently advancing, closing that distance and initiating physical contact.
▪️ An Attempt to De-escalate: This video shows Victim 1 was not the one escalating the situation; he was attempting to end it by leaving. The owners were the ones pursuing and initiating contact. This is the aggression that Victim 1 tried to report to the deputy—the same aggression the deputy allegedly dismissed as not being a crime when it happens to a private citizen.
Video: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19UeiPG5zF/
Video 2: The Invalid Trespass – The Incident's Turning Point
This second video captures the moment right after the initial confrontation, as the deputy arrives. This is the turning point where the situation should have de-escalated but did not.
▪️ Explicit Permission to Stay: The police were on-site to handle a trespassing complaint. Watch what happens here. After the initial confrontation, the property owner—the person who called the police—tells Victim 1 on camera, “No, you can stand right here.”
▪️ The Legal Basis is Removed: With those words, the owner gave Victim 1 explicit permission to be on the property. At the moment of the arrest, Victim 1 was not a trespasser; he was an invitee. This isn't a matter of interpretation; it’s a recorded fact from the owner's own mouth. The entire legal reason for the police action was eliminated, yet the arrest proceeded.
The Arrest – A Failure of Procedure and a Double Standard
With the context that Victim 1 was retreating from aggressive owners and then was given permission to stay—the deputy’s actions come into sharp focus.
▪️ The Lack of a Lawful Command: Knowing he was not trespassing, Victim 1 asks the deputy a direct, lawful question: “For what?” am I being detained. Instead of providing a reason, the deputy’s immediate response is a threat: comply or be arrested. A threat is not a lawful order.
▪️ The Disputed "Resisting" Claim: The deputy is heard yelling “Stop resisting!” during the arrest. A key claim is that the deputy later told Victim 1 that he was not resisting and that the difficulty in handcuffing him was the deputy's own mistake. If the 'resisting' claim was inaccurate—as Victim 1 alleges the deputy himself later admitted—then the force used was based on a false premise.
https://youtu.be/RhHWNDaFQhk?feature=shared
Video 3
▪️ A Two-Tiered System of Justice: After everything you've seen, listen to the deputy's own words. He explains that if someone were to knock an item off his vest, it would be charged as assault and disorderly conduct. But he argues that when the owner did the equivalent to Victim 1, it was not a crime. The question this raises is simple: Does the law apply equally to all, or does it offer special protection to those in uniform?
https://youtu.be/2lCs_uFSZ3Y?feature=shared