Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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...:(
-
Sounds like we're not getting all the story. Maybe there was something obscene about the shirt or his behavior?
-
This would be hilarious, if it weren't so bloody stupid.
Tronsky
-
Yea thats outrageus.
-
wow, so much for the 'land of the free'
-
Welcome to AmeriKa, comrade*.
*sponsored by the "patriot act" and everything else that removes freedoms and rights in order to "protect" us.
-
I agree with Iron. Must be more to this than the sory indicates. Most New Yorkers aren't that stupid. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...;)
-
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
-
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. :D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
the reason is irrelevant.
MiniD
Unless youre a reporter.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Does the Bill of Rights have a place on private property? (Answer should be "yes").
Do I have the right to hold some sort of demonstration on your lawn? Not if you don't say I can. Am I subject to arrest if you tell me to leave and I don't (Answer is "yes"). :)
-
Here's an MSNBC story with more elaboration:
A Macy's employee saw the men in the food court and alerted security. Downs and his son were asked to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn't, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested for trespassing.
...
His son points out that they were not verbally protesting or interfering with any other shoppers.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
They may not have been saying anything, but their message apparently created enough of a disturbance to the mall employee.
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp
So maybe there's nothing illegal about what the managers did...but it sure does make them look like a bunch of thugs.
-
As a little more gets presented I think I'm getting the gist of it.
I do believe something was construed as a "demonstration" of sorts. The explanations of all the things they weren't doing imply some sort of indication of what they were doing. If a store has a no demonstration policy, it doesn't matter if the sign is in your hand or on your shirt.
Talk about a ploy to illicit a reaction.
MiniD
-
Yeah, the security guards were stupid. Sure they had the authority (first amendment doesn't apply to shopping malls; that's why we're trying to build a roof over the whole US), and sure we don't know the full story of what was going on, but boy does that mall look bad.
-
Mickey1992: 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.
No, not arbitrarily. The laws regulating access to privately owned "public spaces" are contrary to freedom to control one's private property and libertarians are against those. But while such laws and regulations exist, they must be obeyed. One cannot be told to leave for "any" reason.
However contrary to freedom, in order to operate a mall one has to get a license and sign compliance with local regulations. For example, one has to provide bathrooms for both sexes and facilities for disabled for example, whether he wants to see such people on his property or not.
You cannot deny someone access or refuse service unless you have some reall reason - so the mall will have to prove that him wearing the T-shirt was a serious violation rather than arbitrary discrimination.
On the other hand, if he was demonstrating rather than quietly eating, he was at fault. Let's see what happens.
miko
-
And he will get it in the public eye, in the courts is a different matter.
Originally posted by Mini D
Talk about a ploy to illicit a reaction.
MiniD
-
*sigh*
What the guy's shirt said is totally moot. he was asked to leave private property and refused... this is criminal trespass regardless of what else has transpired.
Gofaster: Does the Bill of Rights have a place on private property? (Answer should be "yes").
Gofaster what you are implying is extremely dangerous. You're implying that a person should have a right to stay on private property as long as he sees fit. What if a guy was standing in your front yard looking in your young child's window? Under your perception, you shouldn't be able to order him off your property, or.. if he stayerd he shouldn't be breaking any law..it's his right.. I agree that the security gaurds were morons.. but be careful for what you wish for.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Do I have the right to hold some sort of demonstration on your lawn? Not if you don't say I can. Am I subject to arrest if you tell me to leave and I don't (Answer is "yes"). :)
Can I only own a gun on public property? :p
-
Quote: You cannot deny someone access or refuse service unless you have some reall reason - so the mall will have to prove that him wearing the T-shirt was a serious violation rather than arbitrary discrimination.
WRONG!!!!
You can evict someone off private property for ANY reason... for NO reason. If that person refuses to comply, he is guilty of CRIMINAL trespass. It's another matter entirely if his CIVIL liberties were violated.
Ther is no grey area here. The guy broke the law by refusing to leave.
-
From the AP wire, left out of CNN or MSNBC story:
"Monday's arrest came less than three months after about 20 peace activists wearing similar T-shirts were told to leave by mall security and police. There were no arrests."
What most likely happened was the Suits at the mall told the security guards to have any t-shirt wearing protesters thrown out.
-
Originally posted by Steve
You're implying that a person should have a right to stay on private property as long as he sees fit.
Nope, I'm implying that the rights of the people extend within the boundaries of the US government. When I exercise my right to free speech, I do it on public and private property. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention "the right to gain access to another person's property". You can say what you want on my land, but when I cancel the invitation to be there you have to leave. The guy had the right to wear that shirt, but not the right to stick around.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
No, not arbitrarily. The laws regulating access to privately owned "public spaces" are contrary to freedom to control one's private property and libertarians are against those. But while such laws and regulations exist, they must be obeyed. One cannot be told to leave for "any" reason.
All you have to do is put a "No loitering" sign on the front door and you can ask/tell anyone to leave. Even if these guys were doing nothing more than sitting around as human billboards you can still ask them to leave.
-
You don't have to post any sign. As a private property owner you can ask a person to leave your property at any time, for any reason. No signs need be posted. If the person does not make an immediate effort to depart the property: criminal trespass is being committed. Guys you need to be aware of your private property rights. For instance, in Arizona, if you ask a person to leave your property, and that person refuses, you have the right to assume that person has bad iuntent in mind and you can point your gun at that person in order to remove him from your property/prepare to defend yourself. If ya shoot him and you cannot show that the intruder intended serious bodily harm you'll have a problem but you are within your legal right to "draw down" on him.
-
The First Ten Amendments to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights). Key parts in Bold.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
============================================
Of course, none of this really matters in regards to trespassing on private property, other than the right to a speedy trial. Land ownership and control is one of those rights retained by the people.
-
exactly gofaster... it's a "sensational" story when just reviewed on the surface... fact is the guy clearly broke the law when he refused to leave the premises. I have a hunch he was looking for an angle on a civil suit....I have a hard time believing he would stand his ground on principal with his child there. If the security guards had already displayed their stupidity, perhaps the possiblity that they would use force to remove the offending party existed as well. A reach I'll admit.. but is the small chance that it could occur worth risking..with your child there?
-
Must suppress the opposition right.
-
Steve, the child is 31 years old. After getting more info from MSNBC it looks to me like the mall was outta line. Still, they have the right to disallow their facility from being used as a political forum.
-
Quote: Must suppress the opposition right.
Huh?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
No, not arbitrarily. The laws regulating access to privately owned "public spaces" are contrary to freedom to control one's private property and libertarians are against those. But while such laws and regulations exist, they must be obeyed. One cannot be told to leave for "any" reason.
That is correct, this is a conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 5th.
To add to the complexity of this situation, nearly all major malls in the US were built with some sort of public-private partnership.
-
the mall had every right to do what they did right or wrong. This is another side effect to the malling of amerika. We will continue to lose our public property as our downtowns close down and we build huge indoor malls were we lose certain rights upon entering those places.
-
Suspect your being sarcastic but you are essentially right. While you can run around screaming and acting the total bellybutton out in a desert they frown upon such activity at places where most folks congregate.
Originally posted by Frogm4n
the mall had every right to do what they did right or wrong. This is another side effect to the malling of amerika. We will continue to lose our public property as our downtowns close down and we build huge indoor malls were we lose certain rights upon entering those places.
-
TY for the info on the "child" Iron... I suspect then, that the child was no attorney.. or he too might have angled for a suit. Of course.. the father could have been standing up for common sense and perhaps is not the least bit litigious.
The younger of the two removed his shirt...
Ironically, the security guards had NO right to ask the two to remove their shirts(technically, they could only advise them that they were not welcome on the property while wearing the shirts). Ask them to leave yes, ask them to remove the shirt.. absolutely not.
-
If he was asked to leave BECAUSE he was wearing the t-shirt, then thats really sad.
-
Sounds like the guy did the right thing if he wanted to publicize something he saw as wrong. Had he simply removed the t-shirt or left the premesis, it would have ended up being his word against theirs. By forcing a confrontation involving the law, what happened is now on record. The guy will probably end up with a fine, maybe nothing. Either way, the mall loses.
SOB
-
Ya Animal... as much as the guards were doing nothing illegal, and that I'm a hawk who feels iraq needs a makeover, I think the guards(or whoever put the policy in place) were acting like tards.
Although it was a political statement.. it hardly seems offensive or even inflammatory... a non-vulgar opinion on a tee-shirt...geez.
The only argument I can come up with is: The policy setters want no politically motivated statements displayed and have a zero tolerance policy.
Otherwise the guards are just bullies huh?
-
(For any lawyers on the board)
What civil liability would the mall have?
-
Originally posted by Steve
The policy setters want no politically motivated statements displayed and have a zero tolerance policy.
Otherwise the guards are just bullies huh?
I really hope they would have done the same thing with someone with a "Lets nuke Iraq" shirt (ive seen these), or something similar.
And even then, I think its extreme.
In fact, diddly em, they should not be kicking anyone even if they have a KKK shirt.
-
Ya, otherwise they would certainly have no recourse if the T-shirt wearers brought suit... and on the level you and I care about: If you're gonna be an ass, be one to everyone. heheheh
-
Here is a Liberal's (me) perspective:
The mall had the right to tell them to leave and then have him arrested when he wouldn't, but they (the mall) were morons for provoking this in the first place. The shirts did not have any inflamatory, or even specific, slogans. No "Bush blew up the towers" or "No war in Iraq", or any other BS. They simply had the old slogans "Give peace a chance". I see t-shirts with all sorts of slogans, some prettyy crude, in the malls in my area. The statement was hardly inflamatory enough to warrant the reaction that the mall managment had.
Of course it backfired on them as they had 100 active protesters there today.
-
More info: (their title, not mine)
Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2329464)
Apparently he had just purchased the shirt at the very mall in question.
According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.
-
And what a diddlyed up world we live in.