Police arrest anti-war protester, 80, at mall.

Here the mail is privately owned, the man who owns it doubtfully ever goes there in fact seeing the massive amount of land and business he owns nationwide I would wager someone else worries about “the little stuff”.

So if the people in the mall complain about an issue like this and security is called it would be no different really than me placing someone under citizen’s arrest or calling the cops for trespassing on my doorstep. I know it sounds rather stupid but some people are like this. The elderly gentleman did nothing wrong. But he now can be charged with trespassing if the owner/s choose to do so for not leaving or changing his shirt when ask. Other than that he could have worn the shirt anywhere he chooses to.

It was not the cops that were the criminals in this case, but rather the people in the mall that would rather he be removed from sight. I personally think those who caused this to happen should be “taken behind the tool shed” so to speak. It is because of idiots that refuse to even see or hear something they disagree with that things like this happen.

Not trying to change the subject but this is not far off from what I see happening on a lot of things in the future including religion, politics, child care, you name it. If someone thinks it offends them and all they would have to do is look away but won’t this is what will happen. They want everything their way all the time and do not want to be bothered with the ideas of others or another’s feelings.

This is not a police issue at all this is the people that walk amongst us causing this garbage. This is our neighbors, co-workers, and in some cases families.

Sometimes I hope it is not too late to stop this ideology that has taken a strong root in our country.

Raist

reply to post by rcwj75


Two questions:
1.Are you a cop?
2.What state was this in?

Note to "itsfreakinandrew":Come on dude you sound like one of these mall "wussies",you said "no disrespect,well thatsEXACTLY what it was-disrespect,just hit ignore and be ignorant,dont write us a dissertation on why,it was news to me too,I gave the OP a star and a flag!!I too am glad the OP posted this

On a side note this is further proof of our "programmed" country/world,I am begining to be truly ashamed to be an American!!This is the clasic "be doscile,conform,be passive"issue.I saw a movie a few months ago about these subliminal messages by aliens that could only be seen with sunglasses,lol,it was dumb but sounds like whats really going on here....BE DOSCILE,lol what a joke the society we live in,I dunno maybe yall know what movie Im talking about.This thread really sparked me up!

[edit on 3/30/2008 by jkrog08]

[edit on 3/30/2008 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
can any American tell me why Bush was re-elected again 4 years ago?

Because we live in a country where patriotism has evolved into paranoia and isolationism. People are so afraid to hear 'anti-patriotic' opinion that they will start to allow ridiculous things. The arrest of old men for t-shirts being a great example. The imprisonment of political dissidents being the next horrific possibility.

God help us all.

reply to post by BlasteR



Bingo again, you got it right too.

Private property rights end when the place is fully open to the public, as in a mall. It is a public place that happens to be privately owned. The owners have decided to take risks and are insured for all of them. The expression was a free speech issue, and the mall was wrong. Unless the shirt was legally obscene, and it is not, then it can be worn anywhere in public.

The man should sue, both the cop's and the mall security. The cop's try to [in their arrest on some security guard that has no comprehension of the law. I guess they are just ticket writing robots for the mall owners, huh? If a lawsuit gets started, that will change, and fast. Unpopular mkessages cannot get their protected right to attention of they are banned ...and I predict that this phony charge will be thrown out in court. It is so typical for the cop's to find some silly technicality to back up the business bigshots even when it comes to denial of rights.

Shame on the mall, the guards, and the cop's...all of them need some education and common sense, and soon.

Yeah, er, you have freedom of expression - just not on anyone else's property.

Anyone (or their security) can kick you off of their property for any reason at all, just like you can tell any schmoe to leave your house.

This is more a case of an ignorant war protestor, and his little fan base of victims who think this has anything at all to do with taking rights away.

The only reason a T-shirt like that is offensive to others is because people are in denial and have no idea what's going on in the world around them.

You know, that was the same thing I told security when they told me to take my shirt off that showed two people having sex! I just told them that people make babies, HEEEYYYY-OHHHHHHHH!!!!!

/sarcasm

well the source article raises a few interesting points.

first is that the man wasnt in a wheelchair. he was placed in a wheelchair when he refused to get up and go with the mall security so they could wheel him out instead of frog marching him out.

him and his group were handing out pamphlets and NO mall will let you do that without permission.

private property. im all for free speech, 12 years military, but in the same sense im also in favor of the rights of mall owners to put in place their own rules on behavior and ask anyone who breaks their rules to leave. if i owned any business i want the right to ask someone to leave and the right to take action if they dont.


though i do NOT get where handing out pamphlets turns into censoring tshirts......

i also agree that the cops did what they had to.

maybe its just me though but the funniest part of the story was

As Zirkel was being wheeled to the police car, the crowd chanted "We shall not be moved!" Moments later, they moved; police and mall security had ordered them off the property

so i guess of all of them the only one with the cajones to stand up for their beliefs was the 80yo deacon...theres a man i can respect

so no one gets confused where im coming from, i support my brothers and sisters in arms overseas. i agree with many of the original reasons for the iraqi war (the wmd issue will be decided by history...im still out on that one) but i think its turned into a fiasco thats sucking the life out of our country. at this point, while i do believe that since we broke iraq we are obligated to fix it...i want my people home. (and id rather that my army wife didnt have to go but if she does then thats the way it is)
/rant

Originally posted by jkrog08
Two questions:
1.Are you a cop?
2.What state was this in?

Yes I am...for 6 years now.

I think its NY...from what I found. In Long Island.

Wow....this is simple outrageous.....completely 100%. How anyone can say that this was nessecary or even remotely correct.....idk. I can understand removing him from private property...but arresting him. The sheeple in this country disgust me....

reply to post by eyewitness86


By that statement you just took away the rights of every property owner in the U.S. I am guessing you are not a business owner, if you are you are willing to release more of your rights than you should.

It matters not if it is open to the public or not it is still private property that the owner pays taxes on. My driveway is open to the public in that someone can use it to turn around. This is why you will see some signs that say private drive; they do not want the traffic.

My property my rules if you do not follow those rules I want you off. If I or my security cannot remove you in a legal manner than the police most certainly will. It even works the same when I go to Wal-Mart, they can ask me to leave the property if I am not abiding by the rules they have put in place. Though the Wal-Mart here also has to answer to the same man who owns the mall as they rent the land they are on from him.

Public property is owned by the government be it city, state, or federal.

Raist


[edit on 3/30/08 by Raist]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Private property rights end when the place is fully open to the public, as in a mall. It is a public place that happens to be privately owned. The owners have decided to take risks and are insured for all of them. The expression was a free speech issue, and the mall was wrong. Unless the shirt was legally obscene, and it is not, then it can be worn anywhere in public.

You are wrong. First, the U.S Supreme court has given the State's the right to rule on freedom of expression in private property that is open to the public - IMAGINE THAT! State's still have rights!

In 1995, the highest court in New York ruled that shopping mall owners could prohibit any kind of campaigning, petitioning or distributing of leaflets if there was in place a blanket, no handbilling policy.

The mall that this man was in? Smith Haven Mall.

The case? Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall (1995)

Smith Haven Mall has that blanket policy. The man was asked to turn his shirt inside out so that he would not be "indentified," per say. This was a second chance for the man, and would have allowed him to stay inside the mall.

He refused, and so we have the story of this law ignorant breaker on ATS with a fanclub of doom and gloomers.

In fact, he is just an ignorant criminal.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Private property rights end when the place is fully open to the public, as in a mall. It is a public place that happens to be privately owned.

I would love to know where you got this idea. Have you considered the implications if this was actually true?

The mall is private property and the owner(s) have complete say on what goes on there. In this case, the man was apparantly handling out brochures (likely without permission) and obviously upset somebody. In a retail facility, upset customers leave...and the facility makes less money. So, he was asked to cease and decist...he refused. He's told to leave, he refused. At this point, he's now trespassing. It's no different than if I came into your home as in invited guest and refused to leave when asked.

The title on this thread is very misleading. The man was not arrested for wearing an anti-war tshirt. He was arrested for refusing to vacate private property after being told to do so by the property owner. Wearing an anti-war tshirt is not a crime and never has been to my knowledge.

reply to post by more_serotonin_pls



Bravo !

I logged in specifically .. in the middle of a busy day, in Australia, in order I could star you ! Well done


And now I'm go to star others whose posts deserve starring also

Originally posted by rcwj75
See its easy to sit and say to do this and that but NOT know the laws. It was a mall, which means it was most likely PRIVATE PROPERTY. So security of that MALL has the final say when it comes to removal/arrest.

And this is exactly what's wrong with police enforcement. You are telling us that the owner of property dictates the law?

I can see them requesting you leave their property but the decision to arrest should be surely the law enforcement on scene, no?

If you as a cop cannot make on the spot decisions, and use your own initiative, it kind of explains the anal enforcement of laws in this country.

Yeah the corporation really do dictate the law it seems.

You know just about everywhere you go is 'private property'? Property is theft, and I guess self expression illegal.

'Core baby, that's really free'...

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
can any American tell me why Bush was re-elected again 4 years ago?

Because the brainwashed populous of this nation thought that he was leading the fight against terrorism, not realizing that Bush was and is the terrorist leader. Also the fact that he could wave his hands and say 9-11.

Originally posted by ANOK
And this is exactly what's wrong with police enforcement. You are telling us that the owner of property dictates the law?

I can see them requesting you leave their property but the decision to arrest should be surely the law enforcement on scene, no?

No, that is false. Its called a citizens arrest and YES it still exsists. When the owners/operators of the mall (private property) asked him to change his shirt he rufused. By refusing he basically told the owners screw off....they in turn told THEIR security to remove them...he wouldn't go..hence trespassing. When he broke that law IN VIEW of security THEY decided to arrest him for breaking a law thats on the books. Once THEY do that, there is no having us show up and UNBREAK the law he was arrested for. We HAVE to follow through. The decision to arrest was made by security who are regular people...hence the citizens arrest. Had NO LAW been broken THEN the cops could have said no law was broken and he IS NOT under arrest. But it didn't happen that way....

If you as a cop cannot make on the spot decisions, and use your own initiative, it kind of explains the anal enforcement of laws in this country.

Again your lack of knowledge is what makes you say dumb stuff like this...ask first and be clear before saying stuff....we CAN make spot decisions when WE are the ones making the arrest, depending on the crime, etc...but a citizens arrest is different. Once the arrest is made and a law HAS been broken..its done..ONLY A JUDGE can then throw it out...not us

Again..I don't agree with it all the time..but until you guys start bitching to the RIGHT people, NOT COPS...the laws won't change

[edit on 3/30/2008 by rcwj75]

everyone here DOES realize this guy wasnt arrested for his tshirt right?

his tshirt and his pamphlets aside...he was asked to leave the mall, refused, was physically placed in a wheelchair for eas of transport and arrested for refusing to leave private property.

it wasnt about his shirt, it was about his refusal to leave.

thing is...i totally support his rights to wear that shirt. it wasnt obscene (and my views on what is obscene are actually pretty liberal, i find very little obscene) and i can understand the security and the pamphlets thing...i dont get why they had an issue with his shirt but w/e but apparently they felt it was causing a disturbance (which ill agree was BS)

but once he refused to leave, he broke the law and its as simple as that.

this isnt about his shirt, or his rights to free speech, its about trespassing.

so i think this is a good thread for the discussion but, and im sorry to the OP, but the thread title is a bit misleading and goes back to a thread in the BBQ section recently about changing headlines from the source.

the ACTUAL headline from the original source is:

Police arrest anti-war protester, 80, at mall

Originally posted by ANOK
And this is exactly what's wrong with police enforcement. You are telling us that the owner of property dictates the law?

So.... you don't dictate the law in your house?

Just imagine that you have a much larger house, with rented rooms that contain shopping outlets and a main hallway for the rooms (outlets).

Thats it. Tell me where you live so I can come to your house. Prepare to ben taken over. I will give you a new law.

To me, this seems a lot like when you have peole complain about a email they get sent, or a comic posted on a buliten board, that offends them for some reason. you can be fired for these, if you posted them, becuase the company fears a lawsuit. The man was asked politly to change his shirt, instead of doing so, he refused and created a spectacle of himself. The security officers were doing their jobs, it's the people who were offended and had him kicked out.
Oh, and another elitist used the term "sheeple" without actually considering the circumstaces of the occurence. Yeesh.

reply to post by Damocles



Appreciate your clarification.

But ... I applaud those who're saying it and saying it loud.

The phoney WAR is the obscenity !

And people KNOW it !

The old man wearing the T-shirt knows it. Has limited years in which to try to save what's left of his nation.

Would have been so much easier for that old man to remain comfortably at home, secure in the knowledge that he knows right from wrong .. sane from insane.

So much easier for him to sit within the security of his own home.

He could perhaps have phoned a talk-back show.

He could perhaps have written a letter to the editor.

He could perhaps have restricted his protest to whining gently to those he knew well .. in his family, neighbourhood, church, etc.

But no. This old guy decided he was not going to take the easy way out !

Old people don't enjoy attention, as a general rule.

They don't enjoy being ridiculed.

They know they're physically weak. They know just about anyone -- from an eight year old kid to a seventy year old --- can seriously hurt them.

But it's not the size of the dog in the fight.
It's the fight in the dog that matters.

And that old dog still had the heart of a lion.

He decided he'd rather go down fighting (not for his own sake, incidentally) than die safely in bed.

He made that decision.

Such a courageous decision, all things considered.

And then in he went .. fighting for his nation and his people.

Bravo !!!


And THAT is why people are supporting what he did.

The finer points of law have no bearing, really, as far as most are concerned.

The old guy is an inspiration.

People's posts show they ARE inspired !

And that is what the old guy risked so much in order to achieve.

Wonderful



[edit on 30-3-2008 by Dock6]