BS: Americans smile at Police Assault

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Slag
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:38 PM

Art, let's just see how nit-picky we can get, is that the game? These and "other" rights? The ablility to communicate is so fundamental to the existence of any living creature (or life "happening") that it certainly falls under the "self-evident" label, does it not? And shall we quibble about the use of the word "freedom" and "right of" found in the First Amendment? I don't know about you but I was born with the inherent right to communicate at whatever level I was able to communicate. It is a very broad category and most sane, rational men would not quibble about it except they be legal, Constitutional scholars or Supreme Court Justices.

So, unless you are the latter, you are just being contentious. I must say, however that you are correct that neither Jefferson nor anyone else "gave" us these rights nor did they claim to "give" these rights. They "enumerated" these rights, right?

And, like anything else, rights can be abused which is why we have policemen, armies and a legal industry in this country. In the clip, the gentleman with the sign was not being abusive and I saw no one complaining to him or about him. I don't know, maybe they were all in on the joke. It doesn't matter. The only abuse I saw, ON THE CLIP, came from the private goon-squad. Had they ben given police-powers by the state? I don't know. Did they print limitations and restrictions on the tickets? I don't know. Were rules and regulations posted at the gate? How would I know? I know the guy told those human bowlingballs that he was engaged in free speech. Talk about an upfront warning ( you're gonna git sued!)!

It did look like a "set-up" and those lunkers rose to the bait, didn't they? At any rate, he made his point in spades and I would think that this little clip will be appearing in law school classes all around the country. It has certainly generated a good discussion here at the 'cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:21 PM

University California Berkeley had banned political activity and fund raising. Savio's actions had no place on campus.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:21 PM

I guess it was a different story, for a lot of you, when Mario Savio was rallying up the UC Berkeley, students, and a lot of other non-students, during the mid-60's.
I myself, thought this guy, in Alaska, was being pretty obnoxious. So were the 'Security'.
I'm surprised you're not blaming Sarah Palin.....oh yeah, she's not Governor any more ..oh well, let's find someone from the 'Right' to blame....for behavior that was so reminiscent of the 'Left'!..or is it the other way around??
Chicago, 1968!

GfS

P.S. NO..It was Fox News!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 03:46 PM

Agree with you Q, looks like that is why the guy was arrested it was trespass and not a free speech issue at all that caused it as Ebbie dug out in the facts. Like our football games here, you can get arrested for sure if you don't obey the rules. The stadium is private property with rules of conduct. if you break them they ask you to leave, if you don't leave you get arrested. Seems now that Ebbie found that info it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:49 PM

At our yearly big blowout (Calgary Stampede)- the guy would be arrested and charged with public nuisance and perhaps other charges depending on his response to arrest. Foul language loud enough to disturb patrons would be cause for arrest. Political signs and attempts to attract listeners would be cause for ejection and/or arrest.
The property is owned by the Stampede and their board makes the rules.

And a good thing, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:45 AM

And that (mouth shut) is the real and difficult deprivation for this man!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM

(and work for it, as his lawyer says, with his mouth shut. >chuckle<)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:40 AM

it does seem like a reasonable story that Ebbie found out for us. I can now somewhat understand why this went down like it did. I still have some questions in my mind about it .. trespass for sure, that makes sense. The other stuff I think was not founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:31 AM

I guess Ebbie's excerpts tell a reasonable story, don't you think old dude? The assault charge was silly and the disorderly conduct (we know from Wright the Harvard professor) was not well grounded, but trespass is fair enough, for noncompliance with the rules on private property even if he did pay? If he wants to set an Alaska free speech precedent he's going to have to work for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:28 AM

The Supreme court has ruled many times that freedom of speech doesn't give someone the right to yell fire in a crowed theater. We all know that. But I find myself in a very sad place where I have to somewhat support someone I find so offensive. I did not see him do that. It looked to me like it was a peaceful assembly .. The fact that he was carrying a firearm, well he was legal, he didn't brandish the weapon at anyone so that is not an issue. I am legal in 26 out of 50 states as I am fully licensed. 27 states if I count Alaska. I will be very interested to read how this shakes out in the courts. We cannot say it is ok for us to comment about political matters and then deny that right to others who's views we find distasteful. I am a big fan of Thomas Jefferson. He is a hero to me. Fact is freedom of speech is very much a right protected by the Constitution. Many have tried to use a lot of issues to deny others that right. I will wait to hear how the courts rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:54 AM

Slag, neither Jefferson nor the other founding fathers, nor the creator if such exists, gave anyone any right to free speech. You may or may not recall that this was not listed as an "unalienable" right in the Declaration. Rather, it is clause 3 of Article I of the Bill of Rights. This is a legal right that exists in the US and a limited number of other political entities, not a natural right. Anyone who believes otherwise is certainly welcome to experiment somewhere where this legal right does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: kendall
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:46 AM

I say again, Freedom of speech has limits.
Michael, I raised three daughters who knew better than get mixed up in that sort of thing. One of them had a row with a rent a cop when she was 16 and when she got home I told her she was grounded for the summer.She was wrong, period. If he had "kicked her ass" I would have kicked his.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Slag
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 03:44 AM

Art, according to Jefferson and agreed upon by the signers (and also by myself) we have certain "UNALIENABLE rights" which include but are not just limited to life, liberty and the pursuit...etc., and these rights are the endowment of our Creator, or perhaps, if you are so minded, by the impersonable universe at large. The truths and rights are held to be self-evident. That presumably means evident to sane, rational men. You might argue against the latter on the grounds of historical evidence but that is another topic.

We ARE born with these rights but like any right they must be asserted and exercised for them to be a functioning reality. If you don't KNOW your rights, if you don't exercises your rights, you have no rights. And there unfortuantely are a lot of mommas who deny the child the right to have its diapers changed. Talk about silly!

My comments are based on the clip alone as it was the only evidence at hand. Of course there is more to the story and the more FACTUAL evidence that turns up the better off we will all be to make a rational judgment concerning this incident. However the ideals voiced by so many in this thread do reflect our Constitutional understanding and beliefs about this free state of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 03:02 AM

Sad.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:16 AM

Here is what I've found in Alaska newspapers.

"An altercation with fair security, caught on a more than nine-minute video and posted on YouTube, led to his arrest on charges of fourth-degree assault, disorderly conduct and trespassing, said Cmdr. Tom Remaley of the Palmer Police Department. The video has also sparked criticism that state fair security personnel used excessive force in detaining Hill.
************

"I don't know why security wanted him to leave, but he was yelling that he had his right to free speech," Remaley said. "He also had a handgun on him, and they took him into custody. There were trying to get him on the ground and felt the gun."
Officials at the Florida State Fairground maintained that their private property rights superseded the man's constitutional right to free speech, and that other political protesters would be asked to leave as well.
"We not only have the right to (limit protests), we have a responsibility as well," a park official told the Frontiersman.
Something his wife says is simply unfair for someone who was practicing his freedom of speech.
"He was just exercising just that, his freedom of speech," said Erin Hill. "They let him in with the banner that's in your face and then turned around and tried to stop him after they let him after he paid admission."
**************

In an update by the Anchorage Daily News, a marketing director to the state fair attributed an "unwritten policy" of not allowing people to spread political messages unless they've paid a fee to rent a booth like other exhibitors.
***********

He was taken into custody by police after the incident. A judge opted against seeing him charged with assault, but Hill does face a count of trespassing and disorderly conduct. He was freed on $250 bail, according to reports.

Anchorage


And from Fairbanks

"When security personnel discovered Hill had a handgun on him, "that's when the whole thing changed," Phipps said. "All the supporters went away when they saw there was a gun."

"As Hill is on the ground, an off-duty Alaska State Trooper also intervened to help with crowd control, Phipps said.

"That's when the off-duty trooper stepped in," he said. "He felt that, at that point, it was a public safety issue because he was inciting people to come help him."

"For Valley residents, Hill is a familiar figure in downtown Palmer holding the same sign. For the most part, he's a peaceful protester, Remaley said.

"We've had complaints about him yelling at people in traffic or encroaching on traffic with his sign," he said. When Palmer police have responded, Hill has always complied and is within his rights to protest.

But at the Alaska State Fairgrounds, which is private property, the fair has the right to ask political protesters to leave. It's like a public school, where school property is owned by a school district, he said. If Hill or anyone were to show up and start protesting, they'd either need permission or leave if asked.

"That this is private property is a big issue as well," Phipps said. "We not only have the right to (limit protests), we have a responsibility as well. The key issue is that whatever rules we have have to apply to everyone."

"Hill, who had been held on $500 bail, was arraigned Friday afternoon at the Palmer Courthouse. Assistant District Attorney Trina Sears said her office decided not to prosecute Hill on the assault charge, but is going forward with the charges of disorderly conduct and trespassing. She also asked for, and was granted, an order Hill not return to the fair.

Hill's attorney, Josh Fannon, hushed his client's one attempt to address District Court Judge William Estelle, who reduced Hill's bail from $500 to $250. Hill posted bail and was released."

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:26 AM

"We are born with the rights." That is just plain silly. The only right you are born with is the right to have your momma change your diaper, if she feels like it. If you are a US citizen, you have certain rights given to you under the law, and the basic law is the US Constitution. To say that "The constitution just reiterates that fact (that we are born with the rights) and places limits on government demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:37 AM

heric
that is what I was thinking also, but normally they just would call the real cops ... then I thought well maybe cause they saw he had a weapon but that would be even a stronger case for calling the real cops. Maybe, don't know .. it is all pretty disturbing. I don't really care if it was all setup for political purposes or for youtube knowing something like this could happen. The fact is, it did, if he did nothing wrong .. they violated his rights. Would really be good to know what he was charged with. I have to find that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:30 AM

Do you suppose he didn't pay - they asked him to leave - he ssaid no - they called the cops and THEN he could be arrested for refusing to leave? (Seems strange even then to leave it to the fat guys, rather than real cops, even if legal.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:24 AM

Hey lets don't fight cause it doesn't answer any questions.
Some nutcase on the street with a sign talking smack about everything .. we would walk right by, probably shake our heads .. but keep walking

But they stopped him from speaking .. that is the point I am struggling with here .. you can't do that .. Even if the message is so odorous it turns your stomach.. Under the Constitution, you can't do that not here not in this country

if it is allowed, then they can stop anyone anytime from speaking .

I got a problem with this whole thing now. I need to do some research to find out all the facts ... not just a clip but everything before and after .. this all stinks pretty bad for me at the moment. Ya can't do that in America

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:16 AM

Remember how we learned with that black Harvard professor (who wanted to be pompous and a crybaby at the same time) that's its perfectly legal within the First Amendment to hurl vulgarities and epithets at cops as long as you are not doing anything illegal?

Maybe his signage was in violation of the Fair rules, or something, as that blonde woman seemed to be suggesting. I can't imagine what he was arrested for. A crowd was assembling and getting vocal, but not because of him.

(Didin't that guy standing between the crowd and the fat guys say he was a State Trooper?)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:14 AM

"Backwoodsman: No concept of private vs duly-authorized law enforcement. Two private thugs hammer a guy, then a third, duly-authorized cop shows up to tell people that yes, my badge says these thugs can do this. The private thugs are going to lose everything they have in court for their attack. The one actual cop on the scene will probably goosestep away from the incident and continue to protect other lawless contractors."

ichMael: no concept of English Comprehension. Created a thread with the title 'Americans smile at Police Assualt', which I pointed out was untrue - the 'assualt' was carried out by private security employees, not the police. ichMael reads that in reverse, and proposes it as being an indication that I don't understand the difference between private v. duly-authorised law enforcement. Shows complete lack of understanding which must be deliberate, I can't believe he really is that stoopid.

<> WGaF? At least I can spell.

Odd how police-haters and barrack-room lawyers can't spell 'assault'.
They know all about 'assualt', all about everyone's 'rights', they know the Constitution back to front, but they're complete fuckwits when it comes to spelling it.
WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:52 PM

Well I keep posting to this thread because it is important and we should discuss it. Do I like the guy in the video ... I find him obnoxious and wouldn't give him the time of day on the street. But I see some points here. What did he do wrong? Being a loud mouth that most people don't like? Having political views that most people don't like, and even having a hate sign of Obama. Those are not crimes. He was man handled pretty good but if I broke no law I would object pretty strong also .. I know this was a set up as a test .. but it troubles me on a couple of levels now. Heric just explained private property and what conditions apply to free speech even on private property..

now I gotta believe he did nothing wrong .. my friends Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear and so is the Constitution.   I really need to know what charges were brought on him cause right now as much as I dislike the guy and all he stand for and believe me I do.. He is an American with rights..

You see we did this same stuff with the Patriot act using a lot of excuses to disregard the Bill of Rights .. disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:37 PM

(Of course you can create ambiguity in varying degrees most anywhere - so he could sue in any of the states by using the State Fair connection as something new and different to consider.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Slag
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM

One could assume from the number, diversity and behavior of the attendees that this was a lawful public assembly. Many different types of activities and behavior was going on which leads me to believe this was a wide open and peaceful assembly:   a State fair and a common occurance in the 49 other United States. This is an event for citizens of the host state and as such it cannot bar citizens from any of the Unitied States, OK? I would argue that even if the land was private land it is obviously, for this event, open to the public and is therefor subject to all the rights of the citizens of this free country. All the other folk there were exercising their rights so I have to assume that this gentleman was among that larger number.

Did he pay to get in? Let's assume that is also the case. Why? Because if it were simply a matter of gate-crashing he would have been summarily escorted out and that would have been the end of the matter. No, something else was going on here (but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?).

The reason we have the First Amendment is not to protect speech with which we may agree. It is the protection of speech with which we may strongly disagree or even hate. Without that, no one is free. Futhermore the so-called politically correct speech is against our freedoom of speech in that it attempts to surpress disagreeable speech. For that reason, I reject political correctness. Our freedom of speech has nothing to do with an individual's opinion(s).

It is just the same in this gentleman's case. I may find his sign ugly and disagreeable and his opinons digusting but he has his right to them. He wasn't inciting violence or unlawful activity. He was, in fact, presenting a polical opinion. This is the very speech that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when the First Amendment was drafted and adopted.

This man suffered an extreme violation of many rights, chief of which was his being denied his First Amendment rights. He was also assualted when the security guard (Gestapo) laid hands on him. That is battery. Assualt occured when they interferred with his lawful activity.   His private property was unlawfully taken (the sign). He was hurt and that is a fact. If you don't believe that, have a 450 pound gorilla sit on you and see how you feel. He was not violent and he posed no flight risk and yet they held him down in the dirt. The goon squad had to have been private security because only at the end of the piece did we see an individual wearing a shirt marked "police". Only a sworn police officer can receive a citizen's arrest which I assume was what these eight-balls were attempting to do. I would love to see a follow-up to this story. It looked like something out of 1938 Nazi Germany.

If this clip doesn't send chills and warning signs flashing through your brain, we have already lost the noble revolution begun some 230 plus years ago. Wake up America.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:29 PM

old dude: I >think< that if you have to pay for entry and you don't pay, they can kick you out / call it trespassing, anywhere. (I have no idea what the rules are about being arrested for trespass - and here it would be an Alaska question.) However, if the property is generally open to all comers, and somebody kicks one or a group out, in Colorado/California/New Jersey/North Dakota (Pennsylvania?), the aggrieved can say "you were unreasonably stifling my free speech as your true or main or only possible intent." So he/they could sue in one of those states or one of the undeclared (or particularly ambiguous) states (like Alaska) and find out how the state judges want to play it - under their own state constitution as constrained by the US Bill of Rights.

Good question about what he was arrested for.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:52 PM

ichMael
    and I wish you would consider posting other things then political threads. You seem to have a good knowledge of music and the outdoors. I enjoyed talking with you on the infamous skunk thread .. Although the mudcat seems to be saturated lately with politics and religion it is really suppose to be about music. Lots more stuff to talk about then left or right politics ...

I agree with you that the bill of rights lately is very much being undermined, I suspect no one here would disagree with that. But you have a good knowledge of the outdoors and music and many of us do also and it would be nice to not bicker so much on these political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM

But someone really needs to clarify, was it private property or not and if so, if you are asked to leave (in Alaska) can you be arrested for defiant trespass. You can here. I am trying to understand why he was arrested then unless it was for trespass. Typically disorderly conduct does not apply for political sign carrying. Again I do not agree at all with his views, just trying to understand the situation that lead to his arrest and take down in such manner. One cannot be arrested for having political views others don't like but one can be for trespass in this state on private property. Please clarify. if Alaska is a free carry state then his possession of a firearm was legal and should not be an issue in the discussion, unless he pulled it, but I didn't see that .. did anyone read why they arrested him what the charges were?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: ichMael
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 PM

Okay, what do we have since I last looked in?

Artbrooks: The First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." This is a restriction on Congress, not an unrestricted right of individuals, and really only covers laws enacted by the Federal government. This right is extended to Alaskans, and laws enacted in Alaska, because a similar right is included in the Alaskan Constitution: "Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." The right to free speech does not extend to private property and non-governmental rules and regulations.

Absolutely no notion of what the U.S. Constitution is. Amazing. We're born with the rights. Born with them. The constitution just reiterates that fact and places limits on government. The video showed those rights being violated. The man was attacked and his constitutional rights were violated.

Backwoodsman: No concept of private vs duly-authorized law enforcement. Two private thugs hammer a guy, then a third, duly-authorized cop shows up to tell people that yes, my badge says these thugs can do this. The private thugs are going to lose everything they have in court for their attack. The one actual cop on the scene will probably goosestep away from the incident and continue to protect other lawless contractors.

Kendall: He supports someone who's different receiving an ass-kicking. Wait til it happens to you and yours. You'll flatulate a different tune then.

Joe Offer: Calls this thread propaganda for an extremist position. That's what we've come to, folks...drawing attn to a violation of the First Amendment is extremist.

Kendall: Second thoughts. He was under arrest, right? Too late. You made the call. When they kick your kids' asses you just need to stand back and shut the hell up.

gnu: thinks the guards were a bit too rough on him. Well la-dee-dah. They should have been a little easier on him while they ground him into the ground for exercising his right to free speech.

Q: He should have been ejected. Period. Same as with Kendall, wait 'til it happens to you and yours. Your attitude is so abhorrent to the spirit of America that you should be ejected from anyplace you set foot. Just stay the hell indoors.

Kendall: Michael must be laughing up his sleeve. Hardly. This is a pretty disgusting stuff.

Jeri thinks the episode was humorous. Yuk-yuk. Kill America. Yuk-yuk.

Bill D: "Rent-a-cop" is loaded language designed to paint legitimate security personnel in a negative way, no matter what the situation. Fine. Wait 'til the situation is they're kicking in your head because you spoke out about a city ordinance.

gnu: Doesn't matter about private property. What matters is the public nuisance this idiot was causing when he did NOT have to do so.   I beg to differ. Obama is the greatest traitor I've seen in the white house in my lifetime. Did you know that he just petitioned the U.N. to punish Arizona for human rights violations? That is the most SUPREME ACT OF TREASON I've ever witnessed a president perform. He EARNED a Hitler 'stache with that one. The man in the video was admirably restrained, given the magnitude of Obama's crimes.

olddude: I would hope he was not licensed to carry a concealed weapon. ... Alaska is a Carry at Will state. You don't need a license to carry a gun. Those rent-a-cops were damned lucky the man or someone else there didn't shoot them for their lawlessness. Thoroughly disgusting. Like the old Pinkerton Detectives busting skulls for the robber barons.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

Heric
but if you are on private property you can be asked to leave and if you don't get arrested for defiant trespass? that is a question, am I right on that one or does it not apply here

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM

Thank you, heric. You are gentleman and a scholar, and there are just too few of us anymore.

The case I was thinking about did involve the Pruneyard in Campbell, CA.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:32 PM

pdq is right about his observations being in California under California law. New Jersey, Colorado, and North Dakota- maybe a couple of others - are with them. Most are not. Alaska has not addressed it. The analysis works in a counter-intuitive direction: If a state like California wants to protect free speech in quasi-public areas (i.e malls and on private university campuses), the federal courts can knock them back IF the State is unreasonably infringing on property rights. (Land leased from the State or otherwise having some sort of state "presence" may also be subjected to tougher standards favoring free speech.) California does it its way at malls, and New Jersey added in private university campuses, but most states don't bother.

(The feds used to lean toward the freedom of speech side, but tilted toward private property rights in 1976 ("Hudgeons.") pdq's case is "Pruneyard," 1980.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM

Alaska Mike is now Florida Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:13 AM

I ypto quite often. And I typo poorly.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:07 AM

Shouldn't have corrected the spelling in the title - its was a good indication of the mental acuity of good old Itch Meal.

Perhaps Itchy's real name is Breibart ?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:17 AM

Might even hear Alaska Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:15 AM

By the way, the Alaska State Fair is delightful - and you're likely to hear some pretty good folk music there, too.

-Joe, who doesn't agree with the thread title spelling change-

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 02:00 AM

And thanks for correcting the mis-spelling of 'Assault' in the title, whoever did it.

I always think that the obvious inattention to detail that's indicated by a poorly-spelled title tells one a great deal about the likely standard of the content of the opening post, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:56 AM

"Attention Whores"...........great one Jeri! I love it!

I shall use that phrase gleefully at every available opportunity (and they are many!).

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:04 PM

I think that is because he knew he was being filmed. This was all planned.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM

I don't find it very surprising that he got arrested. I've seldom seen a person more obviously hungry for some dramatic form of public martyrdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM

I don`t think he would have used the weapon (small solace and a BIG leap on my conjecture). It seemed clear that he was there for the reason Kendall cited... he was looking for trouble and he found it. In the end, the fact that he had a weapon bolsters the justification for the guards to use proper takedown technique. (Even tho I still think it was a tad ``rougher than needed``. But, safety first, I always say.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:49 PM

I would hope he was not licensed to carry a concealed weapon. However in some states it is far to easy to get one. At least in New York they do so many checks on you (including your medical record) that there is some peace of mind when one is issued that it is a generally a sane and down to earth person. Some states no so... carrying an unlicensed handgun in most states is pretty severe and can get you up to 5 years

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

Now it makes sense to me, thank you Jeri
if you are on private property, you are asked to leave and you don't... It is called defiant trespass and yup you get arrested .. now I see what it was about, and that is nothing to do with free speech at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:33 PM

Doesn't matter about private property. What matters is the public nuisance this idiot was causing when he did NOT have to do so.

Free speech YAY! Being a nuisance idiot NAY!

Jeri... as for trolls, I apologize, but sometimes I just gotta, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:21 PM

like Jeri said... a fairground is NOT public property. Any event where someone rents a venue and/or charges admission has control over what is allowed during the event. "Rent-a-cop" is loaded language designed to paint legitimate security personnel in a negative way, no matter what the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Dumbass Attention Whore
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:09 PM

I'd be embarrassed by this if I were one of his peeps, because the whole thing is pretty lame. It's even more pathetically humorous that it's plastered all over the internet. Too bad nobody opened a popcorn concession, but the whole thing didn't take that long.

Attention whores... whether they're trying to get some YouTube time or stir up an internet tempest in a teacup. Luckily for Ich, people at Mudcat never tire of giving him what he wants.

Every loonie in the world ends up on the Internet, and we're getting more an more of them here at Mudcat, because you LIKE having them here. Boys in the bar like the fights, but I think it's a shame people can't just walk away once in a while, if only out of compassion for those who do NOT want to be neck deep in this shit all the time.

For the record, the guy was arrested. He was found to have a loaded weapon on him. The fairground is on private property. It's not hard to find these things out if you do about 30 seconds worth of 'work' on Google.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:43 PM

Why do I get the feeling that Michael is sitting back laughing down his sleeve?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM

Q those are good points. I don't know much about the law as it applies to such. I know here in town they threw out some protestors who were picking for something or other at one of the events the town puts on because of the paid admission thing , I think it had to do with windmills on one of the hills outside of town for generating power.. so you are probably correct. Don't know how or what the event in question was.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM

He should have been ejected. Period.
He abused his rights by disrupting a venue which had paid admission.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:40 PM

"But you are right, if that is private property then no he doesn't .."

Not necessarily.

There was a case in California about 30 years ago where some loud, obnoxious protsters were disrupting shoppers in a multi-store mall.

They were forced to leave but filed suit against the mall owners.

The judge decided that the protesters had a right to be there, on private property, because the shopping center was open to the public.

If that precident is still used, the protester mentioned here is free to hold his sign and exercise free speach on any part of the fair grounds that not subject to an entry fee.

Our local fair grounds has several picnic tables and a parking area that are open to anyone at any time of the day, essentially public land although the fair grounds is privately owned.