T-shirt gets Van Nuys woman kicked out of federal building, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 04:54 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by ATruGod



Yes and it needs to be stopped maybe if this lout of a guard gets fired he can be the first of many examples.


I hate to tell you this, but the tide is going in the other direction in this country. The police-state is here. If this guy gets fired, I'll be surprised. Maybe they'll post him in a different building, but even that is just to placate the public and has no real meaning.


I notice how you highlighted the "Unlimited power" but left out the rest of the sentence that says "to question with the absence of probable cause requirements".


So? A guard doesn't need probable cause. Even a cop needs that and they get away with shooting a guy 50 times.


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 05:55 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Freeborn



You don't have to be breaking any law to be kicked out of a building by a security guard here in the States. As a guard, I can tell you to leave the building any time I feel like it, without any "reason" at all. Now that doesn't mean that you can't go over my head to be allowed back into the building at another time, but you could be arrested for failing to comply during initial contact. It's entirely at the discretion of the guard.


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 06:33 PM by Freeborn
reply to post by jackinthebox



Wow, so if a guard just takes a personal dislike to you for any reason whatsoever he / she can simply ask you to leave even though no law has even been suspected of being broken?


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 06:37 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Freeborn



That's exactly correct. I don't have to state any reason, but of course, I could come up with plenty. I could say a simple body gesture was threatening. Or that your demeanor was suspicious. In other words, even if you just look at me wrong, you're looking for trouble.

EDIT to add: What a guard cannot do is arrest someone who has not committed a crime, the police can. But of course, it's not hard to push someone's buttons enough to get them to be "disorderly" which is a misdemeanor that you can be arrested for.



[edit on 8/28/0808 by jackinthebox]


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 06:48 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by amazed



Your "civil rights" aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The guard in this case could have easily said that the woman's shirt might have caused a disturbance, which throws her "right" to wear it right out the window.

The wrong look can easily be interpreted as a terroristic or violent threat.

EDIT to add: By the way, you should credit your source, and post in in proper format as an "external source."

I believe the source you have referenced is Wikipedia.



[edit on 8/28/0808 by jackinthebox]


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 07:56 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by ATruGod



Its funny because the only person who caused a disturbance is the security guard himself...and now he can find himself being sued.


People get sued all the time. She would never win. The guard was completely within his rights to exercise his own discretion. Especially if the post orders designate visitor attire as being within the realm of his duties. Would you sue the quickie-mart for them not allowing you to buy beer and gas without your shirt and shoes?


Again your "interpretation" is quite amusing, you honestly think because my shirt "might" cause a disturbance it removes my right to wear it if You a security guard says so and I'm shopping in the mall you secure?


That's exactly correct. In fact, my local mall is now openly practicing age discrimination on the weekends, as another example. Try snapping pictures with a big old camera the next time your in a "public" mall and see what happens.


reply posted on 30-8-2008 @ 06:17 AM by heliosprime
reply to post by budski




Wrong, the entire issue of homosexuality is an abomination and should be removed from society everywhere. The t-shirt was noting more than "trolling" for vile homosexual desires. She should have been jailed, tried, then stoned................as should all who practice homosexuality.


reply posted on 30-8-2008 @ 06:35 AM by Kryties
reply to post by heliosprime



You have the right to your opinion, as does everyone else. I think in this thread though you will find the pro outweighs the against.

All you are showing is your clear ignorance of homosexuality and the people who choose to live that lifestyle. Personally, while I am a straight, married man, I have several gay and lesbian friends whom I think absolutely no different of just because of their sexual preferences.


Wrong, the entire issue of homosexuality is an abomination and should be removed from society everywhere.


That is your opinion, not the opinion of the majority.


The t-shirt was noting more than "trolling" for vile homosexual desires.


Or advertising a cause she believes in.


She should have been jailed, tried, then stoned................as should all who practice homosexuality.


Really? Who made you judge, jury and executioner? Not me, I know that much. Perhaps it is you who should be jailed, tried and stoned for your total and utter ignorance of anything that rattles your redneck lifestyle.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^