[DRB]

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

This is truly unbelievable. Look what he does for a living. What are the odds he is going to get in any trouble.

 

[Lucee]

I hate when Orwell's predictions come true.

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

what happened to freedom of expression and thought?

I don't get it. He definitely has to get off.

 

[patconnole]

There has to be more to the story-- it's just too stupid and sad otherwise.



....."They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em."

 

[I Are Baboon]

I am all in favor of bombing the living piss out of Iraq, but this story is rediculous. Making a guy take off his peace t-shirt? Patconnole is right...there has got to me more to the story.

 

[Spud]

WTF? Arguably, the mall was within their rights as private property managers, but that is still incredibly lame. I’m sure the district attorney’s office is just chomping at the bit to get involved in this one (not).

 

[Spud]

And they are off! Looks like mall management is chewing on rolaids....


By DAMITA CHAMBERS, Associated Press Writer
GUILDERLAND, N.Y. - About 100 anti-war demonstrators marched through a mall Wednesday to protest the arrest of a shopper who wore a T-shirt that read "Peace on Earth" and Give Peace a Chance."

"We just want to know what the policy is and why it's being randomly enforced," said Erin O'Brien, an organizer of the noontime rally at the Crossgates Mall.
Protest leaders were scheduled to meet with the mall's manager after the rally. Calls to mall officials were not immediately returned.
On Monday, Stephen Downs, 61, and his son were asked by mall security guards to remove their peace-slogan shirts or leave. Downs' 31-year-old son, Roger, took off his shirt. But Downs refused.
The guards called police, and he was charged with trespassing and pleaded innocent.
Police Chief James Murley said: "We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property."
The men had had the T-shirts made at a mall store and wore them while they shopped

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hmmmm......Who to believe??

The hippie lawyer or those agenda-pushing renta cops.

 

[patconnole]

Don't know much about the law-- but I think malls and the like are public places, even though they're on private property. If they are allowed to pick and choose though, couldn't the mall owner/security guards ask a minority person to leave? Or any kid with a "big johnson" shirt? Or anybody...? Unless they're obstructing business or something, I don't think the mall is allowed to call whoever it wants a trespasser.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Hmmmm......Who to believe??

The hippie lawyer or those agenda-pushing renta cops.

How about the Senior Lawyer for the Albany Office The New York Commission of Judicial Conduct? Face it the mall f'd up. And they f'd up with the wrong guy.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Well, the mall is private property, there's no doubt about that. What troubles me is that the security guards are not the owners, but they are paid to remove rowdy people. Either this order came from higher up, or the two guys were doing something else. If it were simply a matter of the guards acting out their personal prejudices, they would no have called the real cops and escalated the incident.

 

[LordOpie]

If you're going to wear t-shirts or any thing that's going to attract that kind of attention, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Don't tell me those two didn't know exactly what they were doing. They were looking for trouble. And they got it.

I hope the guy gets a couple hundred hours of community service.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by LordOpie
If you're going to wear t-shirts or any thing that's going to attract that kind of attention, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Don't tell me those two didn't know exactly what they were doing. They were looking for trouble. And they got it.

I hope the guy gets a couple hundred hours of community service.

You mean a T-Shirt that says, "Give peace a chance," right?
Yeah, they were looking trouble.

 

[LordOpie]

oh, come on, you know as well as I do that they were making a statement, it wasn't some random lovey-dovey idea, they're protestors and figured they'd generate sympathy by their passive approach... well, it worked.

Now, the courts need to make an example of them.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
If you're going to wear t-shirts or any thing that's going to attract that kind of attention, then you should be prepared for the consequences. Don't tell me those two didn't know exactly what they were doing. They were looking for trouble. And they got it.

I hope the guy gets a couple hundred hours of community service.

And again we hear from the the First Amendment's greatest supporter.

Can't empathize for him?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by DRB
How about the Senior Lawyer for the Albany Office The New York Commission of Judicial Conduct?

Damn canadians.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by patconnole
Don't know much about the law-- but I think malls and the like are public places, even though they're on private property. If they are allowed to pick and choose though, couldn't the mall owner/security guards ask a minority person to leave? Or any kid with a "big johnson" shirt? Or anybody...? Unless they're obstructing business or something, I don't think the mall is allowed to call whoever it wants a trespasser.

For a time I was a lease holder in the SouthShore Mall in Aberdeen and the fact are: Any leaseholder has the right to determine who can and cannot shop within their store. Teenagers are often cited for tresspassing because they have the idea loitering is legal in a public place... so wrong.

There were times when I had to have people removed from my store - I simply called security who then notified police. The police would arrive and simply ask me if I wanted the person removed from my store. I would say yes and the person would be instructed to leave. If the person did not leave they would then be cited for tresspassing.

The law is heavily weighted towards property owners and property protection. Thinking you have a constitutional right to occupy space withing a shopping mall is incorrect - you are considered a guest there by invitation.

I think there is quite a bit more to this storey that we are not hearing. Citing a person for tresspass is nearly always the last act in a long chain of events that may have began hours, days or even weeks before.

 

[Spud]

Reminds me of my old drinking buddy from college: Kicking me out of Mc Donald’s huh? Sh*t I’ve been kicked out of much better places than this…

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by Spud
Reminds me of my old drinking buddy from college: Kicking me out of Mc Donald’s huh? Sh*t I’ve been kicked out of much better places than this…

That's what I told DHGirlie... I've been smacked down by at least 99 different women before you...

 

[LordOpie]

Didn't the article say something about a woman in a store saw them walk by?

If it can be proven that she, the store, or mall had an agenda against these people, then not only won't the trespassing stick, but they could be entitled to damages. If the mall, et.al., has done this before, then i think it'd be easy to prove.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the guy charged was a lawyer, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it to file a wrongful arrest suit and then retire.

 

[Westy]

It sounds more like the security guards being pricks than mall ownership. What smart businessman would want to piss off a large percentage of the population. What really sucks is the mall ownership will probably get sued because a bunch power hungry rent-a-cops can't take a differing opinion.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Westy
It sounds more like the security guards being pricks than mall ownership. What smart businessman would want to piss off a large percentage of the population. What really sucks is the mall ownership will probably get sued because a bunch power hungry rent-a-cops can't take a differing opinion.

ya know, i wouldn't be surprised if it was a cheap marketing ploy on the part of the mall. I bet that area has far more war-mongers than peacenik hippies. Now all the people who want to kill will go to that mall cuz they'll feel welcome and cozy and happy.

I bet they'll stage a mock-hanging of Spongebob Squarepants next... that'll really boost sales cuz there are a lot of homo-haters living there.

 

[Serial Midget]

No it did not. Based on what I read at that link it seems the lawyer has the agenda and was seeking publicity for himself. You should note that all the information is either coming from the arrest record of the defendant himself. It's a one sided storey at this point.

Originally posted by LordOpie
Didn't the article say something about a woman in a store saw them walk by?

If it can be proven that she, the store, or mall had an agenda against these people, then not only won't the trespassing stick, but they could be entitled to damages. If the mall, et.al., has done this before, then i think it'd be easy to prove.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the guy charged was a lawyer, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it to file a wrongful arrest suit and then retire.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ya know, i wouldn't be surprised if it was a cheap marketing ploy on the part of the mall. I bet that area has far more war-mongers than peacenik hippies. Now all the people who want to kill will go to that mall cuz they'll feel welcome and cozy and happy.

I bet they'll stage a mock-hanging of Spongebob Squarepants next... that'll really boost sales cuz there are a lot of homo-haters living there.

Spongebob Square Pants is GAY?

 

[Jesse B]

What was wrong with their shirts?

In my experiance, you get charged with trespassing when they cant get you for anything else, like when you're biking in a "no biking" area, then jump off the bike and walk right before security spots you. They're pissed, but cant give you a ticket. "Oh yeah!? . . . Well. . . Um. . . Ahh. . .You're tresspassing, arrest them!"

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Spongebob Square Pants is GAY?

apparently. I was wearing that t-shirt and got teased by friends about it later when a half-dozen of them emailed me an article posted on yahoo, cnn, etc about how some gay league adopted him as a mascot or some sh!t

there went a $7 shirt :angry:

PS: I should apologize for my posts in this thread. Work was insanely slow today. I went a bit crazy and started posting :devil: advocate garbage.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Spongebob Square Pants is GAY?

He caught it from the Tele-Tubbies... I hear that sort of thing happens amongst the hollywood elite.

 

[goosemagoo]

SM's right. The mall is a business. The goal is to make money. If something is deemed detrimental to a pleasant shopping environment, the managers of the business have the right to remove the disturbance. 2 years ago the shirts wouldn't have turned a head. Now they do. I bet the mall people are trying to say they won't tolerate their business being used for any type of protests.

PETA is based a few miles from me and you ought to see the outfits they wear and the signs they wave at major intersections. No mall around here would dare stand for them to wear disgusting (to their patrons) atire in the mall. A much more extreme example but the mall people are trying to draw a line in the sand.

Bouncers, doormen, school principals (think spiked blue mowhawks or M. Manson clothes for example), maitre d's, courts, etc. have been doing this for years. Tailoring the environment to best accomplish the goal.

But I respect the guy for making a stand against a law he doesn't agree with. If he does his homework and convinces a judge that the old interpretation of the law was wrong he has succeded in his goal. There are more than a few laws I/you may not like. What have we done about it?

 

[valve bouncer]

Ho-hum, another media beat-up. Lets hear both sides thanks.
However, as an aside to those of you who think it's OK to kick people out of your shop/business for personal reasons (i.e-I don't like his T-shirt) the obvious question is this. If the person was kicked out for being black, in a wheelchair, a Muslim or even a black Muslim in a wheelchair, is that OK? I don't think in this case the person was kicked out "just" for wearing a T-shirt, but if he was then this is indefensible. Same goes for the case where the kids are allegedly getting grief because their parents are in the military. If true you can't defend it.

 

[Serial Midget]

I know of no business person who turns down cash based on any of your scenarios. Face it - there are people in this world who are looking for confrontation. Merchants do not seek to have potential customers removed for arbitrary reasons. I've had to remove 2 people from my store and both of them were middle aged white women who were throwing a fit over a price dispute. Both ladies thought they had a legal right to cause a scene and that causing the scene would get their unresonable demands met. They were mistaken on both counts - I guarantee you I did everything I could to resolve the situation before the police were called.

I think you might be interested to know that outside solicitors, hand bill distributors, protesters in general, religious evangelizing or preaching, or any other activity thay might be potentially disruptive to the average mall shopper, is against the puplic use policy of EVERY SINGLE shopping mall in the United States. I remember how airports used to be in the 70s... I don't want those type of annoying people to bother me at the local mall. I like a controlled shopping environment.

Where do I draw the line? Buying the shirt and wearing it is fine, going one step further by drawing attention you yourself and your message is crossing the line. Some of you might agree with this guy's message but so what? The same policies are proctecting you from me and my gun waving, slack jawed cronies. We would much rather advertise our message of war in a temperature controlled environment with a cafe court close at hand.

My rant is not drected at you (valve bouncer) in particular... it's just so easy to be a victim these days. I say piss on this lawyer - he knew what he was doing. He is just another publicity hound. People think he is and innocent underdog, I suspect he is a cad.

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Ho-hum, another media beat-up. Lets hear both sides thanks.
However, as an aside to those of you who think it's OK to kick people out of your shop/business for personal reasons (i.e-I don't like his T-shirt) the obvious question is this. If the person was kicked out for being black, in a wheelchair, a Muslim or even a black Muslim in a wheelchair, is that OK? I don't think in this case the person was kicked out "just" for wearing a T-shirt, but if he was then this is indefensible. Same goes for the case where the kids are allegedly getting grief because their parents are in the military. If true you can't defend it.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I know of no business person who turns down cash based on any of your scenarios. Face it - there are people in this world who are looking for confrontation. Merchants do not seek to have potential customers removed for arbitrary reasons. I've had to remove 2 people from my store and both of them were middle aged white women who were throwing a fit over a price dispute. Both ladies thought they had a legal right to cause a scene and that causing the scene would get their unresonable demands met. They were mistaken on both counts - I guarantee you I did everything I could to resolve the situation before the police were called.

I think you might be interested to know that outside solicitors, hand bill distributors, protesters in general, religious evangelizing or preaching, or any other activity thay might be potentially disruptive to the average mall shopper, is against the puplic use policy of EVERY SINGLE shopping mall in the United States. I remember how airports used to be in the 70s... I don't want those type of annoying people to bother me at the local mall. I like a controlled shopping environment.

Where do I draw the line? Buying the shirt and wearing it is fine, going one step further by drawing attention you yourself and your message is crossing the line. Some of you might agree with this guy's message but so what? The same policies are proctecting you from me and my gun waving, slack jawed cronies. We would much rather advertise our message of war in a temperature controlled environment with a cafe court close at hand.

My rant is not drected at you (valve bouncer) in particular... it's just so easy to be a victim these days. I say piss on this lawyer - he knew what he was doing. He is just another publicity hound. People think he is and innocent underdog, I suspect he is a cad.

I don't care what the message is-- The guy could've had a shirt on that said "F-ing Kill Saddam, and send the protesters to North Korea." Doesn't matter. He could've even pointed at it as people walked by and said, "Hey, check out my shirt!" I'd be annoyed, but I'd be f-ing happy to live in a place where you're allowed to do that.

With the malls being private property-- You're much more knowledgable than me on the subject.. Anyway, I go to this political action club thing, and this subject came up about gathering signatures in a mall. I was told that because the malls in some places have become the public's "downtown," the same rights you'd have on a city street apply to the walkways of a mall.
The current situation conflicts with that .... I just wish I was right though. Hooray for privatization!!!


Just curious-- How did the guy 'draw attention' to himself, beyond just wearing the shirt?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I know of no business person who turns down cash based on any of your scenarios. Face it - there are people in this world who are looking for confrontation. Merchants do not seek to have potential customers removed for arbitrary reasons. I've had to remove 2 people from my store and both of them were middle aged white women who were throwing a fit over a price dispute. Both ladies thought they had a legal right to cause a scene and that causing the scene would get their unresonable demands met. They were mistaken on both counts - I guarantee you I did everything I could to resolve the situation before the police were called.

I would definitely agree with you about the business people not tturning down a sale. That's why the original story sounds fishy to me as it appears they have been thrown out just for wearing peace T-shirts. Any business person who alienates a (large) section of his/her potenial clientele like that must have rocks in their head. No, my arguement was more along the lines that you can't throw people out JUST for wearing T-shirts as some people seem to be saying, as it represents the thin edge of the wedge....what's next black people etc... But if they were annoying other patrons by their actions (other than just wearing the peace T-shirts) like getting in the face of military looking people or screaming "Give peace a chance" right in the face of 85 year old grannies then they got tossed rightfully.
So, I wanna hear the other side of the story as I strongly suspect they weren't just wearing T-shirts. To be tossed only for that is so ridiculous as to be approaching the realms of the fantastic.

 

[patconnole]

I asked mr lawyer. "That probably wouldn't happen in washington state." He didn't cite any codes, but he paraphrased what I said above.... The walkways of the mall don't fall under the narrow interpretation of "private property".

 

[LordOpie]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html

 

[valve bouncer]

"Stopping other shoppers"....aaahhhh so the truth comes out. Good work there Lord Opie.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
"Stopping other shoppers"....aaahhhh so the truth comes out. Good work there Lord Opie.

*bows*

Thank you, but I can't take all the credit. Granted, there is inherent danger in copying and pasting. I could strained my thumb and then be forced to go single-speed

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by LordOpie
*bows*

Thank you, but I can't take all the credit. Granted, there is inherent danger in copying and pasting. I could strained my thumb and then be forced to go single-speed

Thanks for finding that. Wish I could read the second witness' handwriting though!

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by patconnole
I asked mr lawyer. "That probably wouldn't happen in washington state." He didn't cite any codes, but he paraphrased what I said above.... The walkways of the mall don't fall under the narrow interpretation of "private property".

Until they begin to be nuisance to others... the property owners and assigned agents do have a right to remove, restrict and outright ban persons from their property or leasehold. Public in the fact that all are welcome to enter and shop but not to bother and annoy others while on premises.

Petition gatherer's and poll takers more than likely seek permission fromthe mall's management prior to commencing their activity.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Serial Midget

Petition gatherer's and poll takers more than likely seek permission fromthe mall's management prior to commencing their activity.

Thanks for the warning!

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by LordOpie

I bet they'll stage a mock-hanging of Spongebob Squarepants next... that'll really boost sales cuz there are a lot of homo-haters living there.

sponge-bob is gay?!!!!

seriously......?