Author Topic: John Lennon Turns Over In Grave (Read 930 times)

SirLoin · « **on:** March 05, 2003, 02:22:48 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/index.html

Incredible...

AKIron · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:26:15 PM »

Sounds like we're not getting all the story. Maybe there was something obscene about the shirt or his behavior?

-tronski- · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:26:35 PM »

This would be hilarious, if it weren't so bloody stupid.

Tronsky

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:26:52 PM »

Yea thats outrageus.

hawk220 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:30:43 PM »

wow, so much for the 'land of the free'

Furious · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:31:17 PM »

Welcome to AmeriKa, comrade*.

*sponsored by the "patriot act" and everything else that removes freedoms and rights in order to "protect" us.

midnight Target · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:31:32 PM »

I agree with Iron. Must be more to this than the sory indicates. Most New Yorkers aren't that stupid.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:34:53 PM »

He wasn't arrested for the shirt, he was arrested because he was on private property and refused to leave when asked to.

Any bar/restaurant/mall/stadium can ask anyone to leave (as long as it isn't based on race/gender/age/etc.). If that person refused, they can be arrested for trespassing.

gofaster · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:36:16 PM »

This should be interesting.

Does the Bill of Rights have a place on private property? (Answer should be "yes").

Can a host remove a guest for exercising privileges under the Bill of Rights? Should be interesting.

Technically, he was busted for refusing to leave. Whether or not the grounds for his being asked for leave are justified really shouldn't be a factor.

Batz · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:36:25 PM »

I dunno........

It seems pretty stupid but the mail is not a public place. If you are told to leave for any reason and refuse then you are trespassing. He could have avoided being arrested by just leaving when the cops asked him to.

He could have then went to the media and gathered up a bunch of hippie types and come back and picketed the mall. As long as he stayed off their property ofcourse.

The local media there would have ate this thing up.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:36:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
He wasn't arrested for the shirt, he was arrested because he was on private property and refused to leave when asked to.

Any bar/restaurant/mall/stadium can ask anyone to leave (as long as it isn't based on race/gender/age/etc.). If that person refused, they can be arrested for trespassing.

Bingo... and look at the "vulnerable ones" above that posted about this...LOL! hey, I got a bridge for sale...

Mini D · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:37:24 PM »

If mall security asks you to leave the mall, you have to leave. Its that simple. What inspired it or didn't is another story. Once he refused to leave, he was tresspassing... the reason is irrelevant.

MiniD

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:46:46 PM »

This bothers me.

Look if they just wore the shirts as seen on CNN then I dont see a problem. Now I could understand if they were making a scene or activley bothering customers in some way or another - then yea kick their tulips out. While I agree that a private store has every right to kick people out, I think the management overeacted. Again only if they were not making trouble as it seems to saying on cnn.

But of course I still disagree with the degenerate saddam appologists.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:48:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
the reason is irrelevant.

MiniD

Unless youre a reporter.

Steve · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:48:47 PM »

Well, take a closer look at this guys, to determine who the really stupid people are.

Not the police: The guy was on private property and by law, if he is asked to leave by the property owner/person with such authority, and he refuses, he is guilty of criminal trespass. If he refuses to leave and the police arrive, they are obligated to uphold the law and arrest the offender. The circumstances of the trespass are moot, the guy broke the law not for wearing the shirt, but refusing to leave..

Not the judge: Since charges have not been brought, the judge could not dismiss, the most sensible/benevolent thing he could to was what he did: release the defendent OR.

The security guards: These guys are morons and showed poor judgement. It seems quite a reach to declare the shirt inflammatory. However, they DO have the legal authority to order someone off the premises, even if the reason is silly.

The man in the shirt: This guy is a lawyer, therefore he knew full well he was guilty of criminal trespass.

While this is silly, this sort of news reporting leads to irresponsible journalism for the following reason: When the prosecutor gets a hold of this, he will immediately dismiss, probably with prejudice. Comments will probably be made that the security guards were fools. THe news people won't bother to print the end result... its not "news worthy" . Buit in the mean time, short sited people run around saying or justice system is screwed up, while actually the system has nothing to do with what occurred here.

Of course, if the tresspassing attorney is female or any ethnic persuasion, look for a civil law suit to follow, claiming civil rights were being violated.