Woman Arrested at Fahrenheit 9/11 Showing...

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Radar

You're clearly in the wrong on this and so were the cops and theater manager.

Property rights do not trump individual rights and the lady did leave. If you think she didn't leave in an appropriate amount of time, what amount of time is appropriate? Should she have run for her life out of the building? Is 30 seconds appropriate? How about 10 minutes? Who makes that determination and by what standards? Certainly not the theater manager. So who?

When asked to stop the unwanted actions on private property, she should have stopped immediately. She did not do that. When asked to leave, she should have started to leave immediately, and she should have continued until she was off the property. She did not do that. She argued, she caused a scene, she continued the unwanted behavior. She then moved that unwanted behavior to another part of the private property for a time before leaving.

The simple and undeniable truth is that she violated the rights of the property owner. Clearly you lack the necessary grasp of the obvious to realize this. She undermined the very foundation of Libertarianism, and you-- an outspoken Libertarian-- are defending her. You could cut the irony with a knife.

[lumberjim]

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

1.engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2.makes unreasonable noise;
3.uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4.creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

[lumberjim]

i'm thinking that the cops charged her incorrectly. if what we're arguing about is that she didnt leave, it should have been, as glatt said, trespassing. unless she cussed the cops out. ( i didnt realize you could get a ticket for that in pa, btw....not that im dumb enough to do it) she doesnt look the type for violence. unless, maybe she threw some tea on them....... this is another example of police thinking that they can order us about, and we have to comply. so she's a bitch.....maybe. its her right to be a bitch. i dont think its illegal to be rude, is it? she'll win the hearing, and i hope she gets enough press to make it worth her while.

[hot_pastrami]

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that the theater should have called the police on a matter such as this... I think that was a lousy way to deal with the problem, and makes them out to be assholes. But just as she has the right to be a bitch, they have the right to be assholes. They were within their legal rights. The cops were just doing their jobs, which is to uphold the law, and not arresting a woman for any anti-Bush sentiments, real or imagined.

Hell, I went head-to-head with a theater manager once when he insulted my wife and I, and called him some unsavory names... and they threated to have security remove me from the theater. They would have been within their legal rights to toss me out, despite the fact that they initiated the conflict. But they realized that it wasn't worth the bad karma, and backed off.

[glatt]

Maybe the booking officer was sympatheic to her cause, and intentionally charged her with the wrong crime. Or maybe the booking officer is just incompetent.

Either way, she will beat this one in court. She would have lost in court if the charge was trespassing.

Frank was handcuffed and brought to the Embreeville barracks where she was given a citation for disorderly conduct with the intent to create a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

So it looks like she's facing a misdemeanor of the third degree charge. But she will beat it, because she didn't inconvenience anyone.

[Happy Monkey]

Maybe she can be charged with a third degree demeanor for intending to create a public convenience.

First of all, let me state that I disagree with the theater's management of this one. I believe that someone might have posted earlier in this thread that possibly the theater viewed her as a potential public safety hazard if she slowed the exodus of people from the end of the film. I would imagine that at this point the film is playing to a packed house, so crowd control might actually be a serious concern. That's really the only legitimate reason I can think of for why she was asked to leave.

Regardless, the theater has the right to ask someone to leave its property for any reason they feel like. The manager may not have been the owner but chances are excellent that he was acting under the owner's orders. I used to run my own small business selling roses at clubs and bars on weekends. I made a little money to help myself get by that way and I didn't have to show up anywhere at any special time and if I made mistakes in giving back change I was accountable only to myself, so it worked for me at the time.

Anyhow, I became very familiar with the policies, owners, and managers of a number of downtown clubs. Some had no problem with my presence, others barred me at the door which was their perfect right. Had I gone into one of these establishments against the manager's express wishes and come out onto the sidewalk again 5 minutes later, I still would have committed the act of trespassing. Even if I put one toe over the thresh hold after I'd been told not to, that still would have been an act of tresspass.

Radar's argument seems to rest on the fact that the woman was not actually trespassing by time the police arrived. So if I go commit a burglery, I get off the charge because I'd climbed back out the window of the house and was standing innocently on a public street by time the police arrived? The jails are filled with people who would adore being letting off on that one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Frank was handcuffed and brought to the Embreeville barracks where she was given a citation for disorderly conduct with the intent to create a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

What she was arrested for is getting in the face of a Pennsylvania State Police officer. Right, wrong or indifferent, you can not do that, especially in front of a crowd.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What she was arrested for is getting in the face of a Pennsylvania State Police officer. Right, wrong or indifferent, you can not do that, especially in front of a crowd.

i agree in practice, but i disagree in theory. if you as a citizen are confident that you have done nothing wrong, you should be able to stand your ground when a police officer is attempting to bully you. remember, these cops are the jerk offs we all went to school with, just like everyone else.

in practice, it's foolish to do it, because we all know how important 'face' is to authority figures. they have enough power to make you regret arguing with them, and if they're petty enough, they will. i remember conscioulsy slouching when i was talking to a short cop once. i just got the vibe that he resented my height, so i felt it was best if i tried to downplay it. you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em......

that said, this is probably just what this lady was trying to do from the get go......to hilight and demonstrate her fear of the 'authoritarian' behavior of bush's america....

[Radar]

The woman was not trespassing at any point and couldn't have been charged with it. She bought a ticket to the movies, (actually 2 tickets) and attended with some friends who also bought some. This was her pass to get onto the property. Assuming that there were no signs up saying that you can't hand out government forms, she had no idea of knowing this would bother anyone and in fact it did not bother anyone other than the manager. Note: The manager is not the owner of the property.

The simple and undeniable truth is that she violated the rights of the property owner. Clearly you lack the necessary grasp of the obvious to realize this. She undermined the very foundation of Libertarianism, and you-- an outspoken Libertarian-- are defending her. You could cut the irony with a knife.

Wrong, the simple and undeniable truth is that she did not violate anyone's rights including the theater owner. She was exercising her right to free speech and the manager of the theater either asked her to leave or to stop handing out the forms. She believed she was within her rights to hand them out (and she is if PA state law protects political speech as it does in CA) in the theater. She discussed it with the manager while she continued handing it out. This is also not trespassing. She was trying to convince him to be reasonable and let her finish. The manager presumably told her he would call the police to have her removed. By this time she had finished and left the theater unescorted and was to her car. So she complied with the wishes of the Theater manager (not the theater owner) and left of her own accord as requested. Still not trespassing and still not causing a disturbance. The only disturbance was created by the theater manager. Then when she was near her car, she was called back to the theater by police.

At no point were anyone's property rights violated, and anyone who claims they were is either lacks the brain cells or the honesty to comprehend it. There is no irony, and no inconsistancy in what I'm saying. She exercised her rights and didn't violate anyone else's rights. That is as libertarian as you can get.

The cops were not doing thier job and were not upholding the law. They were called about a disturbance and clearly there was none. The person who was accused of creating a disturbance by the person who actually created it (the theater manager) was on their way to her car and wasn't disturbing anyone. They then called her back and argued with her and when she stood up for her rights and didn't bow down to thier supreme almighty authority as a cop, they got pissed and cuffed her.

[Undertoad]

Radar thinks, like the woman thought, that the theatre itself is different than the parking lot. In actual fact most such retail situations have a single owner and the theatre is leasing the property, and so the law applies equally in both locations and the cops are well aware of the desires of the property owner. There is almost a blanket ban on solicitation in such places and it's even likely that the theatre, like most malls, has a "no soliciting" sign on their door.

In our township, 20 miles from where the incident occurred, the Regal Cinema is actually so tight with the local cops that every Friday and Saturday night there's one car on permanent patrol there. You can wager they are absolutely aware of the location's policies.

[lumberjim]

is handing out voter registration forms considered solicitation?

[hot_pastrami]

Oh, I see now, Radar... I hadn't realized that you were actually there, and witnessed the entire event. I assume you were there personally, because that's the only way you could know these minute details which are not disclosed in the article, many of which actually contradict the text of the article.

And I didn't realize that I can't enforce anything on my property without erecting a warning sign... I'd better get started making signs, otherwise the pizza guy will be within his rights to start harrassing my houseguests when he gets here... the fact that I ordered a pizza is his pass onto my property! And if I ask him to leave, apparently he can argue with me about it for an indefinite amount of time, while continuing to harrass my houseguests! And I can't call the cops, because the pizza guy is acting within his RIGHTS!

If that's Libertarianism, I want no part in it. I prefer freedom, and the property rights that come with it.

[Undertoad]

(voter reg considered solicitation) It sure is.

I have been kicked off of several private properties for doing this sort of thing. Mostly collecting ballot signatures, which is lightly partisan, but the rent-a-cops and such treat you the same no matter what you're doing.

You can sometimes convince a supermarket that you're doing a community service but the commercial property owners are extremely strict.

[Undertoad]

More than that HP... under Radar's interpretation, you'd need the actual property owner to confirm tresspassing. So the pizza guy could just step into your neighbor's yard and continue to harass at will, until the actual property owner is located, at which time the police could actually act.

In fact, if the neighbor's on vacation, the pizza guy could actually camp on the front lawn and the cops would be powerless.

Lucky actual cops don't apply the law that way... nor would we want them to. I notice from watching the nightly news about Iraq that actual anarchy isn't as much fun as the bands writing songs about it. It seems to involve a lot of fear and people getting killed and not being about to go about your day.