Woman Arrested at Fahrenheit 9/11 Showing...

[Undertoad]

Radar, again, again again again, there is in all probability no such "theater property". The mall owner owns the land under the parking lot and the theater. So if the lessee's manager did not have the right to demand the woman's removal from the theater, then neither did he have the right to demand her removal from the parking lot.

[lumberjim]

I thought it said she was taken to the embryville state police barracks and cited there. FYI, I drive past this place every day on my way to work, and i'm surprised that the staties were involved. That shopping center is nestled between Downingtown, and West Whiteland police stations. 5 minutes to either one. the state police barracks is a good 15 minutes from there.

[Radar]

Actually I read that they put cuffs on her, put her in the car and took her in.

And UT, even if the manager is acting as an agent of the theater owner/person leasing the property and was granted the authority to eject people from the theater for being a nuisance (as is always the case), he would not have the authority to eject them from the MALL parking lot.

Once they had complied with the request to leave and were out of the building, the theater manager no longer had any valid complaints or authority to make them go elsewhere.

[Happy Monkey]

The theater owner in all probability only leases the theater, not the parking lot. In that case, the theater manager may eject someone from the property they are leasing, but not the parking lot.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Beestie

What I hear Radar saying is that if a propery owner, a person leasing property (inherits all rights of the owner not excluded in lease agreement) or a law enforcement officer instructs a person to vacate a property, that person is not required to vacate as long as they keep running their mouth.

OK, let's introduce a real-life scenario here, as a point of comparison. By Radar's logic, the "perpetrator" in this news story (more info in this article), one Mr. Zeller, could claim that he was just exercising his free speech, and that the cops had no business arresting him, because the door was unlocked, he never actually stole anything, and he had left the property on his own accord by the time the police arrived. Best to read the articles before reading the rest of this post.

Facts from the articles, and quotes from Radar in red:

• He entered the home to take a nap. This is "perfectly socially acceptable in virtially all locations without anyone being upset so most wouldn't assume you'd be put off by it." "If he had just allowed [him] to finish and leave as she was doing, there wouldn't have been a disruption."
• Zeller was a described by people close to him as a man who "wouldn't hurt a fly."
• There was no breaking and entering charge placed against him, so it is likely that the door was unlocked.
• Mr. Zeller's close friend said he didn't believe his friend intended to hurt or snatch the child.
• When the homeowner told Mr. Zeller to leave, the guy kept saying, "Let me explain," trying to exercise his free speech by explaining his presence. "if they are discussing it with you to see if you can work out a compromise and then leave after the conversation, your rights haven't been violated"
• After a few minutes of exchanges trying to explain himself, Mr. Zeller left the property of his own accord. He "left within a matter of minutes which is acceptable for any reasonable person"
• The police arrived, and arrested him on a public street. This person "was on their way to [his] car and wasn't disturbing anyone."

So, if we apply the logic Radar has been using in this thread, we can say that Mr. Zeller was the victim... "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." "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 [homeowner]) was on their way to [his] car and wasn't disturbing anyone." The man didn't steal anything, so "Once they had complied with the request to leave and were out of the building, the [homeowner] no longer had any valid complaints."

There, does that help to understand Radar's logic?

[Happy Monkey]

That story would be roughly equivalent if he had been invited into the house, and had not grabbed the kid.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That story would be roughly equivalent if he had been invited into the house, and had not grabbed the kid.

Well, it's much closer than any of Radar's analogies. And according to the article, he hadn't intended any harm towards the kid, just as Lani Frank didn't intend any harm in handing out forms. "Harm" is subjective. I'm not saying that they're equal, only that both can be perceived as undesirable by a property owner, and that owner is free to respond with proportional force... if you hand out flyers, you'll be asked to leave. If you grab somebody's kid, you'll have the shit beat out of you. Either way, if that response isn't sufficient, it is OK to involve the police.

[Happy Monkey]

However the fact that he wasn't invited is a massive difference.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

However the fact that he wasn't invited is a massive difference.

That is true... and a more obnoxious person than I (were such a person to exist) might argue that the unlocked door was an implied invitation, but that is obviously silly. Maybe I should point out that the homeowner hadn't put up any "no tresspassing" signs on the property, so Mr. Zeller had no way to know that the homeowner didn't want uninvited guests, and see if anybody swallows that tripe.

Just suppose the Mr. Zeller HAD been invited into that man's home... he's the pizza guy! He delivered the pizza they ate for dinner, and then nobody noticed that he was still standing behind the open door when they all went to bed... he was staying behind to make sure they were all satisfied with the pizza, to the last bite. How much does that change things?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

How much does that change things?

It spins the analogy off into the land of the ridiculous.

edit: Not unusual for this thread.

[Radar]

Whether or not the door of a home is locked, to enter without an invitation is immediately breaking and entering and trespass so your example is bullshit.

If you want a more accurate and apt example, you'd could say Mr. Zeller was a friend of the owner who had been invited into the house to watch a game on television. Mr. Zeller asks to use the bathroom and he is given permission. Mr. Zeller then proceeds to take a shower. The owner of the house thought he was only going to use the toilet and gets upset and tells Mr. Zeller to leave. Mr. Zeller is still naked and while he is drying off and getting dressed, he is asking the owner why he is so upset. After all he did ask to use the bathroom and the owner agreed. Mr. Zeller wants to talk to the owner in hopes of changing the owner's mind. The owner again tells him to leave and Mr. Zeller continues drying off and getting dressed. The owner of the house calls the police. After Mr. Zeller finishes dressing, he gathers his things, leaves the house, and starts walking down the street. The police talk to the owner and catch up with Mr. Zeller down the block and arrest him even though he complied with the owner's request to leave his house and even though he had permission to be in the owner's house in the first place.

This is virtually an identical situation. Mr. Zeller did not violate the owner's rights, and he complied with the owner's request to leave. But rather than run outside naked and wet, he chose to dry off, get dressed, and plead his case with the owner.

[Undertoad]

Radar, the manager did not eject them from the mall parking lot. The cops did.

The cops can make an assumption about the land, and we permit them that leeway in the legal system in order so that they may maintain the law of the land.

Many years ago a bunch of us descended on an abandoned airplane hangar for a skate-in. The cops noticed us and told us to get out. We agreed. Should the cops have called the land owner and asked whether we were given permission? If we asserted that we DID have permission, even though that was ludicrous, should the cops have respected that assertion until the land owner showed up? Then the landowner is not being protected. In Radar land we would not have to produce ID and could skate on until the cops found the owner, at which time we would be long gone. People would shit on each other's land all the time, can you imagine the environmental impact?

Instead, we give the cops the ability to make reasonable assumptions and temporarily arrest people on the basis of suspicions. So if I am leaving a building through the window at 3 AM with an entertainment unit, the cops have the right to assume I'm robbing somebody, unless I can come up with a reasonable explanation. They don't have to prove on the spot that it's not my house or my stuff.

In the case of public spaces we can bet, really, that the owner's general wishes about how this very public space is used is well-understood by the authorities. Everybody with a brain understands that no mall owner is going to permit solicitation in a crowded parking lot at night. Chances are it's even in the lease agreement, both ways - the lessee can't permit it and the mall owner can't permit it.

So what do the cops do: generally I would guess, they escalate the consequences for the person until they have to actually take action. In the case of us at the hangar, we knew and expected that we were cooked, and we were just taking a chance that our hour of cleanup would pacify anyone who came upon us. They didn't have to apply any force at all to us to get us to leave: they just asked. I betcha this woman was asked politely to leave, got hardened by her beligerence at the theater manager, and decided to play the game until she actually got arrested. These middle-aged lefties think that way... the protest isn't done until someone's proven their meddle by spending time in the back of a paddy wagon.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Radar

This is virtually an identical situation. Mr. Zeller did not violate the owner's rights, and he complied with the owner's request to leave. But rather than run outside naked and wet, he chose to dry off, get dressed, and plead his case with the owner.

Virtually identical, except you left out the part where the houseguest annoyed the other houseguests who don't know him, acted belligerent when confronted, refused to leave repeatedly, and then took his unwanted behavior out into the yard. Oh, and you added a bunch "getting dressed and drying hair" activities which has no parallel in the real story.

Both analaogies, yours and mine, are worthless bullshit. Most analogies are. I just posted mine because I was curious how you'd respond... .when I posted irrefutable, clear-cut facts about the actual event being discussed-- facts which poked big holes in your logic-- you ignored my postings. But when I post an absurd, bullshit analogy, you jump all over it. I mainly just wanted to know whether you A) had put me on your ignore list, or B) were unable to effectively argue my factual posts, so you left them alone. Looks like B is the winner. Thanks for playing.

[lumberjim]

I betcha this woman was asked politely to leave, got hardened by her beligerence at the theater manager, and decided to play the game until she actually got arrested. These middle-aged lefties think that way... the protest isn't done until someone's proven their meddle by spending time in the back of a paddy wagon.

which, as I said earlier, is the heart of the matter. I think we all know what her motivation was, and if you've been keeping up, you'll agree that she could have avoided arrest had she wanted to. it's been fun arguing the semantics, though. Now what have we learned today, kids?

[Radar]

Virtually identical, except you left out the part where the houseguest annoyed the other houseguests who don't know him, acted belligerent when confronted, refused to leave repeatedly, and then took his unwanted behavior out into the yard. Oh, and you added a bunch "getting dressed and drying hair" activities which has no parallel in the real story.

No other houseguests were annoyed. Only the owner was. And for the sake of argument (since there is no proof of beligerance) let's say when the owner told the guy to leave for using his shower, he said, "forget it, I'm naked and I'm not done taking a shower", and argued a bit. That still wouldn't matter. The drying off and getting ready were germane to the discussion because the lady in the theater was finishing something she had started and was in the middle of just like a guy in the shower.

Both analaogies, yours and mine, are worthless bullshit.

You got half of that right (the part about yours) and that's the most you've had right in this whole thread so you're making progress.

As far as arguing "factual" posts, you haven't made any for me to debate against. You've only given opinion, conjecture, and unsubstantiated claims like saying, "all indications are it took 20 minutes" when NOTHING indicates it took that long in any story written about it; not even logic which dictates that even a large theater is empty in less than 10 minutes. I've worked in movie theaters and I am a huge movie fan that goes to the theater 2-3 times a week.

So you're either A) A Moron B) A Liar C) A Hypocrite or D) All of the above.

Looks like D is the winner and probably your average grade in school.