Man Sues California Mall After Guard Arrests Him for Having Conversation About God

reply to post by Snarf


What led up to him being arrested?

He wasn't banned from the place, so what initiated the security guard to be called over and the end result being him arrested?

Stop being a thick headed a hole and call a spade a spade.

Originally posted by Berserker01
So what if he can't stop being black. The Mall, being a private buisness, can refuse service to anyone for anything. But thats alright you just confirmed my suspicion.

How about they kicked the guy out for being there on multiple occasions, told he is not wanted, and not buying anything.

If a business wants to turn away a buying customer because they are black, then they are not run by very smart business men.

The fact that you are trying to compare skin tone, to preaching on private property tells us what level of logical ability you are operating on.

I would laugh at people like you if you wasn't so pathetic.

Stop talking to yourself in the mirror, you'll scare the kids.

reply to post by grimreaper797


I go to the mall with my wife a lot and we never buy anything. So do thousands of people who go in the mornings to walk around the mall for excersise when it is cold out.

That mirror thing was cute. I am done with you, its probably way past your bedtime and I would like to talk to the adults now.

Goodbye.

Yeeha - flame war. Can't we all just love one another?

Seriously though I dare you all to go to the shopping centre and try this out having conversations about your beliefs. Same thing will happen. This is not news.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Exuberant1]

So....let us analyze the facts:

An associated employee (never stated it was an employee of Westfield or if it was an employee of a tenant business) makes a claim that they thought the other party looked disturbed by the conversation.

The person levying the claim wasn't even directly involved in the conversation.

I will agree that the private property owner has within reason to limit the speech on their grounds. I will agree that if the man was preaching, without consent of the property owner than said property owner is within his rights to remove that person.

That being said, this conversation took place between two private citizens that happen to be on private property. The person being engaged by the pastor did so willingly. It was an OUTSIDE party that took it upon themselves to make it more than what it was. That party, only an employee of the smallest nature (and not even known if a Westfield employee or a tenant employee) levied the claim that the other party 'looked nervous'. How would that person know what a 'nervous' look is on someone they do not know?

Given proper representation (unbiased) the pastor could actually win this case that he was not only within the rules of the private property but that the employee and the security guard violated his rights.

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by A NeWorlDisorder

 

I wonder how well your reasoning would work if he was asked to leave only because he was black.

I'm sure you would sing a different tune then.

First of all thats a completely different situation. Asking a person to leave because they are black would be in direct violation of that person's constitutional liberties. Which, if it did happen, a lawsuit would be justified. But asking a black person to leave because they, lets say, are wearing gang colors and throwing gang signs, that is not violating the law. (I live and work in a bad prt of Dallas, I see a lot of gang activity at home and work. This wasn't a ignorant, stereotypical comment.) Even though they technically haven't don't anything wrong a store can still ask them to leave. It would also be a violation of constitutional liberties to ban black people from your business and write into a set of guidelines for the store. Asking a black person to leave because he is talking about God would not violate his constitutional liberties. But, it still holds true that if security comes up to you and asks you to leave (even if your a model citizen and haven't done anything wrong) and you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing. Whether or not it is justified is irrelevant, than can ask you to leave for doing nothing.

Second, Malls are built for one purpose, to make money. Malls are full of people that have different views about politics, religion, cultural and social opinions and discussion of certain topics could cause disruption in the ability for a business to make money. What the man was doing is call "soliciting" and businesses have the right to ask people to leave if they are caught doing so.


Lastly, let's say you own a business. Let's say a pizza business. You have a full crowd of customers enjoying their pizzas and a man walks in. He calmly introduces himself to your customers and starts handing out small books and you notice that the people are starting to look nervous. You go up to the man to see what he is doing when you notice that the man is handing out Satanic Bibles.

Do you have the right to kick him out of your pizza place. Yes, you do.

Does this man have the same rights to worship Satan as the man in the mall does God? Yes he does.

Do you have the right to ask both men to leave if you don't like them bothering your customers, regardless of what they are talking about? Yes, you do.




The only reason this even a topic here is because it involves God. If this guy was a worshiper of Satan, you all would be clapping, putting little smiley faces in your post and giving your overall approval for whatever happens to him.

People can worship whatever/whoever they wish and can talk about whatever they want, but stores frown upon certain activities and they do have the right to ask people to leave. Like I said, a mall, or any other businesses are not a public places, its private property and rules do apply to you in them.

*Edit*
Just wanted to add that I have worked in retail for the last ten years and for the most part the rules are the same everywhere. I'm not just pulling this out of my butt.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by A NeWorlDisorder]

This is a perfect example why Califonia is so freakin' screwed up.
1) It's so politically correct for its own good and
2) People are so sue happy.

Originally posted by A NeWorlDisorder
First of all thats a completely different situation. Asking a person to leave because they are black would be in direct violation of that person's constitutional liberties.

I got this far before I needed to respond.

You have made claim that they are different situation. How so?

As both technically both would be a violation of Constitutional liberty.

You have cherry picked the Constitution to include one protection while ignoring the other.

A private business still retains the right to refuse service to anyone, regardless of color, creed, religion, etc.

This thread could be argued equally on both sides very well.

I don't think I will post more on this. I'm obviously too tired to post what I want to say in a way that can be understood clearly. I am even having trouble reading what I have posted.

Plus, after re-reading the article I feel I may have jumped the gun with my opinions on this topic.

Good night everyone.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by A NeWorlDisorder]

Not to give away my location [too late] but I used to work as a security guard at this mall, and I drive past it everyday to/from work. I think arresting the guy is a bit much, but malls are private property, and technically it could be said that he was soliciting when that is a violation of mall rules. As a Christian I say free speech! lol

PS I was a security guard there before Westfield bought the galleria, before we were IPC Security and had no power to arrest people...we didn't even have handcuffs in the office! We just let the Roseville Police do the dirty work...

Roseville is such a boring middle class area that the Police have nothing better to do...my friend was once stopped for jaywalking...

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by Snarf

 

What led up to him being arrested?

He wasn't banned from the place, so what initiated the security guard to be called over and the end result being him arrested?

Stop being a thick headed a hole and call a spade a spade.

"Thick headed A-hole"?

Thats a new one on me. Really, just proves your ability to argue your own point (you failed, in case you're curious)

If the man were arrested for preaching about God, then he would not have been asked to leave. He would have just been placed in cuffs.

But since he was asked to leave a PRIVATE BUSINESS (notice i said private, see this means opposite of government)

and he REFUSED

he was arrested.

It's simple cause & effect.

And if you want to get into the religious aspect of this - Jesus talked about keeping your religion to yourself and not forcing it on others. Dont' judge others, etc.

If those ladies didn't want to hear it, then, by law of this land and law of his religion, he should have moved onward and shut his "a-hole".

It's so simple a toddler could figure it out:

"Stop talking or you're not getting a cookie"

Case closed.

Originally posted by Snarf
If those ladies didn't want to hear it, then, by law of this land and law of his religion, he should have moved onward and shut his "a-hole".

Therein lies the question now.....did they or did they not want to hear it. Initially the conversation was between two private citizens on private property. Neither being the property owner of course.

An agent (employee: who could be a Westfield employee or a tenant employee--the story is vague) overheard and made a judgment that someone else 'looked nervous'. Not the people engaged in the conversation, but a 3rd party that had no business to interject and dictate what is or is not appropriate.

Funny cause men can go gawk at ladies and hoot and holler but I have never seen them removed. Teenagers loiter and are rarely asked to leave. I am sure that falls somewhere in the company's Courtesy Guideline handbook the security guard handed out.

The security guard, who is an agent of the private business and I am guessing is schooled in the company policies executed his duties how he saw fit.

That leaves the 3rd party employee who took it upon themselves to be the savior and protector of others....people need to stay out of others business.

From the story, and again it is limited, the lady being engaged wasn't the one disengaging from the conversation.

Just to note: This is by no means a defense for the Pastor nor the Mall. It is just an objective view upon the situation.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien


I am not so sure what to make of this. What crime was he charged with? For not listening to the security guard?

(Snip)

He was arrested, via citizens arrest 837PC, for refusing to leave private property, which is trespassing 602.1(a)PC.. a misdemeanor that was committed in the security guards presence. Apparently he had been warned before.

he ordered the evangelist to leave. After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.

Basically, yes, he was arrested for ignoring the lawful order (to "leave") of the property agent (guard). Cultists roaming the malls trying to recruit shoppers into some invisible man worshiping flock is wicked annoying... if this activity was allowed, soon enough the malls would be full of witch doctors swing dead chickens over their heads, it'd be a fringe circus freak show, not a place to shop peacefully.

.. although, I personally wouldn't mind if the Rastafari high majesty was allowed to hand out free grams of ganja.. but that's just me.

California codes:
www.leginfo.ca.gov...

602.1. (a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful
business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business
establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating
those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner's agent, or by a
peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's agent, is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars
($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Snarf
If those ladies didn't want to hear it, then, by law of this land and law of his religion, he should have moved onward and shut his "a-hole".

Therein lies the question now.....did they or did they not want to hear it. Initially the conversation was between two private citizens on private property. Neither being the property owner of course.

An agent (employee: who could be a Westfield employee or a tenant employee--the story is vague) overheard and made a judgment that someone else 'looked nervous'. Not the people engaged in the conversation, but a 3rd party that had no business to interject and dictate what is or is not appropriate.

((snip))

Actually since the 3rd party was an employee, it is their business. The employee was apparently distracted from performing their duty by a shopper who appeared nervous, under 602.1 if an employee has to take time away from their job of "attempting to carry on business", it can be considered "obstructing" the flow of business.

On public property where there is no lawful flow of business, different story.. distracting random people walking isn't interfering with employees. 602.1. (a)PC pretty much gives mall guards the authority to revoke your guest status for a types of minor things.. once they ask you to leave, refusal equates into 'willfully' trespassing... once they tell you not to return, every time you go back is also 'willfully' trespassing.

This guy has an entire state with lots of space where he can recruit for his flock, choosing private property where he's not wanted and refuses to leave, is just being difficult for the sake of creating drama...

reply to post by GovtFlu


What is 'looked nervous'? I know people that look nervous all the time, or distracted while others are talking to them, or constantly walking away from others while they talk, but not trying to disengage from the conversation.

As I have stated earlier, I believe nearly everyone in this case was acting out of good faith, the employee, the security guard and the pastor.

While I stand by the private property's owner and their agent for protecting their property; it goes further to ask: Will all those that partaking in religious talk amongst each other be summarily removed if an employee over hears the speech and feels 'threatened' or thinks someone is acting nervously? Does the employee equally apply his duties when they hear all types of speech that might impede their work duties? There are a lot of overly loud people in malls, should they be removed?

I also wonder as you started out nice and objective, giving truth and facts....then quickly degenerated into mocking someones faith and belittlement. Would you mock equally if it were an atheist that was removed from the premises?

Originally posted by Berserker01
I would laugh at people like you if you wasn't so pathetic.

Gee golly I wish all adults responded to logic with this type of response, it sure would explain how things got so messed up.

If adults respond to "comparing black people being kicked out of store for being black, with religious zealots preaching on private property when asked not to, is absurd" with "I'd laugh at people like you if you wasn't so pathetic" then I'm never going to grow up because adults seem pretty dense.

Luckily this isn't the case. You need to stop projecting your faults on me. It is not me who needs to grow up, nor are people like me "pathetic". Insult somebody, then call them immature for slinging it back your way, I think you are confusing adult with politician.

And my point stands. Private property is private property. Spouting religious beliefs on private property when you are told not to, is against the law, right or wrong, its against the law. Assuming to know what ATS would or wouldn't agree with (thinking me or anyone else would agree if they were spouting off against the war or for the war, or anything like that) is presumptuous. I would be perfectly okay if a guy came in spouting off about how bad a video game was, was asked to leave, didn't, and got arrested for trespassing. That is what he is doing. If you are asked to leave, and it is private property, you don't have a say in the matter.

If you think it should not be that way, bring it up with congress and push them to get an amendment through that allows people to spout beliefs off on private property. Just don't be surprised when it gets shot down because it infringes on the rights of so many people its not even justifiable.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by ANNED

security arrested him.

"He was put in handcuffs and hauled down to the mall’s security station and later booked at the local jail,"

I was a security officer in calif and unless the law has changed a security officer does not have the right to handcuff anyone unless they are violent.
they are not cops and have no law enforcement powers.

If you are passive they can not handcuff you. Cross your arms and tell them you will wait for the cops to get there.

A security guard can not haul you anywhere.
They can not use force on anyone unless they are physically attacked.

A security guard can ask you to come with them to the mall’s security station.
But they can not force you that is kidnapping. One i would never go to a mall’s security station/security office. You want to stay in a public place.
Security wants you out of public sight so no one can make a claim against them with witnesses.
Mall's have security cameras in public areas.
They will film everything.
Even security guards doing illegal acts.
There likely will not be cameras in the security office that is why you want to stay in public areas with cameras.

Those cameras can be used to protect you from false charges.
Once you are not in front of a camera the security guards can claim anything.

Also mall rules in most cases are not laws but just mall rules. they can not handcuff you for breaking rules, only laws.
Mall rules are civil not criminal rules.

They may ask you to leave, they may ban you, but they can not handcuff you for breaking rules only laws.

There are a number of wannabee cops working security.
Most will never be cops because they break the rules and the cops know this.

Not so.. no, no, no.. noooohoohohoho. nope.

Guards, like everyone in Calif, can perform citizens arrests.. AKA 837PC arrest, which are lawful meaning "necessary force" is authorized to overcome any "resisting of arrest"... they can cuff you, and take you to a near-by secure area to prevent a commotion (interrupt business). They can not take you to the police station, or jail while cuffed.. that could be kidnapping. (as a side note, same rules apply for repo men, as long as you're sitting in the car, repo man cant move you one inch)

In general: 837 arrests must be delivered to a peace officer forthwith, once the police arrive, which can take hours, the officers accept the arrest, and either give the suspect a notice to appear (ticket) and release them, or book them into jail until the next court date. Suspects can also be released per 849b2PC, but that's a whole other matter.

The officers write up a police report based on the guards statement (sometimes written) and any witnesses, that goes to the detectives who follow up.. obtain video, dig into the suspects record..that type stuff. The detective writes a follow up report and makes a "recommendation for filing" to the DDA / city attorney. Sometimes dics recommend no charges be filed, or reduced/additional charges.. all paperwork forwards to the DDA/ city attorney who ultimately decide what charges, if any, to file.

Many security companies place extreme limits on what their guards can to to reduce liability, some companies dont allow guards to cuff 'peaceful' people, others do.. mileage varies.

One thing you can do to get even: since it is a felony for the police to refuse an 837, you can citizens arrest the guard, who arrested you.. for battery if they so much as lay a pinky finger on you.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

What is 'looked nervous'? I know people that look nervous all the time, or distracted while others are talking to them, or constantly walking away from others while they talk, but not trying to disengage from the conversation.

As I have stated earlier, I believe nearly everyone in this case was acting out of good faith, the employee, the security guard and the pastor.

While I stand by the private property's owner and their agent for protecting their property; it goes further to ask: Will all those that partaking in religious talk amongst each other be summarily removed if an employee over hears the speech and feels 'threatened' or thinks someone is acting nervously? Does the employee equally apply his duties when they hear all types of speech that might impede their work duties? There are a lot of overly loud people in malls, should they be removed?

I also wonder as you started out nice and objective, giving truth and facts....then quickly degenerated into mocking someones faith and belittlement. Would you mock equally if it were an atheist that was removed from the premises?

Nervous is whatever the employees standard is, which was probably articulated into the police / security report.. maybe reasonable, maybe not... sometimes a jury will decide. In this incident the employees reporting their opinion about what a "nervous" patron looks like is akin to probable cause.. if the employee was stupid, had a motivation or was otherwise totally unreasonable, it would make sense no charges were ultimately filed.

Religious recruiters and *some* members of their lunatic fringe flock have gone way far out of their way to spew the most vile hatred and bile towards myself and a former tart, or two, of mine.. while we were minding & conducting our own personal business, on private property, at planned parenthood.

Ever since my encounters with that flock of rabid freaks and their brainwashed kids.. as far as public places I might frequent are concerned, I cheer the removal of ALL organized religious groups, their symbols, icons, and anything they want me subject to.. kicks the atheist out too, I'll help physically remove them..

I could give a rats sphincter what invisible man people decide to believe in, more power to ya.. I go far out of my way to AVOID worshipers, yet they go far out of their way to harass me. I don't care what you do, or about the favorite voice in your head, as long as it doesn't bother me.. all good.

Apparently I'm a baby killing POS that will burn in hell, uuhh, ok... screaming opinion noted... so I let worshipers know my opinions about them, just because I can.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Therein lies the question now.....did they or did they not want to hear it. Initially the conversation was between two private citizens on private property. Neither being the property owner of course.

It doesn't matter. He was asked to leave by people who represent the property owner.

He refused.

*IF* those people didn't mind him preaching - then this is an issue to take up with the property manager.

The police did what they were supposed to do.

He was asked to leave private property and refused.

He got arrested.

His fault