Very true. In actuality, I agree with many aspects of true Libertarianism, just not Radar's strange version of it. My anti-Libertarian jab was meant to make a logical point using irony, not intended as a true criticism against Libertarianism itself. I wasn't sure if I made that clear enough in my posting. :)

Their sports section is good, though.

Well, its nice of Radar to finally break down and give us the insider tidbit that the woman actually bought tickets. Even so, merely buying tickets does not give one license to do as one pleases on someone else's property. Again, I speak from my experience selling roses. One night a really good local band was playing at a bar downtown. I wanted to take a break from selling flowers and go in and hear them. The manager let me pay the cover, but I had to leave my flowers behind the bar. My cover allowed me to go hear music, not solicit customers for roses, voter registration, the Jehovah's Witnesses or anything else.

Oh, you mean like the way you knew the exchange took 20 minutes?

Nobody said you had to have a warning sign, but you can't expect someone to know what behavior you do or do not condone on your property without one. Handing out voter registration forms 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 you order a pizza and he delivers it and you don't pay him, he won't leave your property and he'd be more than happy for you to call the police. And if he were to hand out voter registration forms to your guests while waiting for the police, he still hasn't committed trespass.

That is libertarianism. In libertarianism you do get your freedom and your property rights. But in Libertarianism your property rights don't override the rights of others to express themselves freely. You may ask someone to leave your home and even force them to leave if they don't comply. But 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. Your rights don't include silencing anyone no matter what property you own. If you don't like that, I suppose you don't like libertarianism, or natural rights, or human nature, or reality.

It most certainly is not. Solicitation would be if they were selling voter registration forms or magazine subscriptions, etc. They were handing out a government form and had nothing to gain by doing it so it is not solicitation.

I don't have a version of Libertarianism. I use the same version of libertarianism that has been used by all libertarians for the last 300+ years. Your attempts to point out irony have failed because nothing I've said contradicts libertarianism.

This woman did not violate anyone's rights, especially not property rights and anyone who claims she did is a liar. She exercised her rights and did not violate anyone else's rights. That is the essence of libertarianism.

And for the example you used, let's say the pizza guy lives next door to you and he wants to stand on the edge of his yard and hand out voter registration forms to your guests who come close enough for him to hand them the form. You have no legal right to stop him.

If you read the post where I stated that, it was a guess. I didn't post it as fact, as you did with all of your unfounded assumptions. I'm a big enough man to admit that my assumption may have been wrong, though Wolf's info does support the possiblity that I am right.


I can expect them to know what behavior I do or do not condone if I TELL them, just as the theater did! Hooray for logic!


Virtually is NOT all. It obviously was NOT acceptable there, or they wouldn't have asked her to leave. Reasoning is our friend.


Just for future reference... changing the metaphor so that it is LESS like the reality does not make it more useful. In fact, it makes it LESS useful. Funny how that works.

There is no parallel to the "don't pay him" qualifier. Now, if the woman had tried handing out the forms before the movie, and had then been allowed neither admittance nor refund, that might apply. But that isn't what happened. Your adjusted metaphor is useless in this discussion.


I have no doubt that you believe that.


Yeah... I could also say that anyone who claims she didn't violate someone's rights is a retard who smells like ricotta cheese. But saying it doesn't make it so, does it? Nor does it strengthen an argument. It just brings back memories of the "liar liar pants on fire" defense from the third grade.


See above regarding the uselessness of making the working metaphor less like the actual events. If the facts don't support your argument, you're mistaken. You can't adjust the facts to fit your flawed reasoning.

Powerless for tresspassing but harassing is a different offense. ;)

They have the same deal over in Upper Merion Township. I usually spend some time chatting with the officer posted from that department, since i know most of them.

I haven't noticed visible police presence at Plymouth Meeting, though.

If you like high school football.

Long post warning:

The dictionary lists the definition of solicitation to be : 1 : the practice or act or an instance of soliciting. The Dictionary defines soliciting to be: 1 a : to make petition to : ENTREAT b : to approach with a request or plea 2 : to urge (as one's cause) strongly.

The request was to please take a flyer. That falls under the very definition of soliciting someone.

I used to volunteer for a group that had Canned Food Drives several times a year. We did it for the local food bank which then gave the food to poor and homeless members of the community. We always held them in front of a local grocery store. It was a win win situation. People would see us going into the store and buy cans specifically to donate on the way out. The grocery store made money off our food drive. We "had nothing to gain" by putting on the food drive. Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME we wanted to hold a drive we had to get permission from the store first. Sometimes they didn't give it to us, and we respected that choice and held it at a different store (getting permission from that store). Its private property (yes the sidewalk between the store and the parking lot belongs to the store), and we had to get permission. A grocery store that only profits from a food drive still has the right to tell a group no they cant hold one. So why doesn't the theater have a right to tell a woman no when she hands out flyer's without permission?

Someone comes to my house and does something I don't like, I then ask them to leave. They leave my house but mill around my driveway for several more min. They haven't actually left yet. The driveway is still part of my property. The theater is the same, whether they lease or own the property they still have rights to the parking lot. If they own the property then there is no question that the parking lot is also theirs. Why would someone buy a theater and not the parking space in front of it? If they lease the property they also lease the right for their patrons to use the parking lot. That makes the parking lot every bit their property as if they were the direct owners.

A manager of a store or business has the authority to act on the owners behalf. If I am a manager and I see some kid stealing merchandise I am not going to try and get the owner on the phone and ask if he wants me to let the kid steal the stuff or if he wants me to call the cops. A manager is hired to MANAGE things. That means he is in charge of dealing with anything that comes up and has the authority to act in the owners behalf. That means he has the right to call the cops and tell them someone has been asked to leave and is still milling around the property. Parking lot still equals property.

Was the theater management over reacting on this matter? I think they might have been. Were they within their right to call the cops on her? Hell yes. Both her and the police say she was asked to leave and she refused. Her own words "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave.". She says she didn't leave so she was trespassing. Thats what she should have been charges with but regardless she is not an innocent victim being oppressed by the mighty corporate movie theater. She is in the wrong as much as anyone else who played a part in the whole overreaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

What you're saying is that my right to not be harrassed by Jehovah's Witnesses, on my own property, is trumped by their right to express themselves?

No, I haven't said that at all. I've said that if they came to your door, and asked to speak to you about their religion, and you said you didn't want to learn about it and could they please get off your property, then they asked if there were a better time for you, or whether you'd prefer visitors from a different religion, or if you would at least take a copy of their magazine, before they go, you're rights have not been violated. They have agreed to leave, but wanted to see if they could work something out first.

So we are determining what degree is the issue then correct?

No, they have not violated your property rights to any degree, nor did the woman violate the property rights of the theater owner.

So far you have offered no meaningful argument to support that assertion. And you've ignored a number of replies which nullify your assertions. Wishing something doesn't make it so.

Radar, I think what Troubleshooter meant by degree is, how long can they try to "work something out" before they're just stalling and violating your property rights?

You seem ok with a few minutes. So how about an hour? Can they continue to stand there "discussing" it with you for an hour without falling into the category of "refusing to leave?" How about 4 hours? How long before they ARE violating your property rights?

Radar, it's practically unthinkable that the theater and its parking lot are owned by different people. Still standing?

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.

"Well, officer/owner/lessor, what if I agree to only hand out 9,999 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,998 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,997 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,996 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,995 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,994 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,993 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
"9,992 flyers?"
"No, get off my land."
...
you get the picture. It would serve Radar right if SpongeBobSquarePants ever landed on his front porch with 10,000 Crusty Crab flyers :)

i think they have until the cops get there to scram, yes?

It's also unlikely, in a strip mall context, that the theater is leasing the parking lot, which is probably shared by all of the mall stores.

We're saying the same thing there, although the rights of the lessee are a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Here's a story which seems more cut and dry.

Good point. If you finally refuse to talk to them and call the cops and they get off your property before the cops arrive, you have no basis for a complaint.

They tried to discuss it with you and you refused to yield so they left your property. You demanded they leave, and they complied. If they didn't do it quick enough for your satisfaction you should take steps to keep the next one from gaining access to your property in the first place, although this might hamper your ability to conduct public business.

Very true and extremely likely. The theater manager only has the right to kick people out of the theater, but if the theater is in a mall, the manager has no authority to kick anyone out of the parking lot because he's not the sole store that uses it. Perhaps this person wants to do some shopping after they leave the theater. I'm sure the other businesses wouldn't be happy about losing business because the manager of the theater decided to be an asshole.

Not really. Legally, the lessee steps into the shoes of the owner except where specifically excluded in the lease document. Conversely, whatever rights the lessor has specifically not reserved for itself are assumed to belong to the lessee. Therefore, the mall owner has no right to kick someone out of the theatre (unless, of course, they were preventing property damage or something like that). In my opinion, the mall owner could not have asked Ms. Frank to vacate the theatre but could have asked her to vacate the mall's common areas including the parking lot. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce the right(s) of the owner and/or the lessee if those rights are being violated.

And conversely, the theater owner can ask someone to leave the theater, but not the parking lot.

SOOOO... Since she didn't manage to get off the property before the cops arrived, (as the cops clearly got to her and were able to arrest her,) I guess this means she was in the wrong then. Should have left before the cops got there.

She did manage to get off the property. She was in the mall parking lot which is not part of the theater and the theater manager has no authority over the parking lot. She was near her car and was CALLED BACK by the police.

This is like the police saying, "We weren't here to see you speeding, but we have it on good authority you were speeding a few hours ago, so here's a ticket."

If a complaint is made and charges will be filed, the perpetrator doesn't have to be present at the time of the police interview of the victim and/or complainant.

...which, once again, is part of the same "property".

...which is NOT part of the same property, because it is the MALL property and NOT the theater property. The theater owner has NO AUTHORITY to tell people to leave the MALL parking lot.

The theater manager had no basis to make a complaint because no crime had been committed and nobody's rights had been violated.

I can make a complaint that the president stole my cat, but will he be arrested for it? And if I try to file a complaint that someone jay walked 2 days ago and I saw it, will they be arrested? I don't think so.

True, but if you make a complaint that a person entered your home, harrassed your house guests and then refused to leave, and the police found them still standing in your driveway when thay arrived, they would at least question the perp. And if the person freely admitted to refusing to leave your property when asked, as this woman did, they'd be cited. This is true even if you live in an apartment building with a shared parking lot, because the illegal action happened on your property, regardless of where the person is standing when the police arrive.

I really don't see the usefulness of introducing jaywalking and cat-stealing metaphors. What does that have to do with this? Those would be completely different situations, which have no bearing on this one.

And does it ever say that this woman was arrested? All I see is that she was cited. Cited and arrested are NOT the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

edit: Not unusual for this thread.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ah, childish insults... the last resort of the hopelessly outwitted. I won't bother posting links to (or quoting) my logical arguments which you ignored... it's not worth the effort when I know the quality of response to expect. If you're so sure that you're right, then go back and read them again, and respond with verifiable facts. If you don't, then your inaction speaks for itself.

If nothing else, your posts are good for a few chuckles.... even if that isn't your intent.

Yawn.

That should earn you a place on his ignore list. If that happens, you will officially be cool.

I've read and responded to all of your posts worth responding to. Thanks for not quoting because I've already seen enough of your baseless claims, flawed logic, and ridiculous opinions to last me a while.

Your posts tend to get tedious after I destroy your arguments a few dozen times as I have in this and other threads. It's also funny to note that when you do something it's supposed to be witty, but when I respond with something similar, it's suddenly "childish insults".

The hypothetical situation I provided was the final nail in your coffin. It was a perfect way to show that nobody's rights had been violated, and that no crime was committed.

I was reminded of a child saying, "Oh yea, well if you don't pick up the snake, than everyone will know you're a chicken. I double dog dare you!" when I read this little gem...

Keep up the good work. With any luck you'll be able to form a rational thought soon.

Yawn. Oh yes, my arguments were all devastated by your steadfast repetition of wishy-washy assumptions.

I'm happy to let my posts stand on their own merit, and let the reader decide to what degree each of us is closed-minded and misguided. Every human ever born bears those flaws to some degree, and some people work around them, while others are forever handicapped by them. And yes, I know what your opinion is on that matter, and it doesn't concern me.

I'm confident enough in my reasoning and intelligence that I'm not resorting to petty namecalling. And no, questioning your intellect is not akin to calling you "stupid," it is a challenge, which you can respond to effectively with wit and intellect, or ineffectively with insults and namecalling. Your actions speak for themselves.

Hopefully our discussion has offered some interesting perspectives for all those reading.

Well as usual the whole thing is more informative about the people arguing than about the situation at hand.

Okay Radar, HP...both of you have stated that you're not what the other claims. Point taken, can we move on?

Back to topic, I gather a few, if not some, of the people here live in the general area of where this happened. I propose someone take 5 minutes and give the mall property owner a call and actually ask if the theater has jurisdiction over the parking lot. That way we can at least put to rest a piece of all this back and forth. Any takers?

Already moved on... as far as I'm concerned I'm done with the debate as of my previous post. As for calling the theater, it's probably not worth the effort... regardless of what they say, it wasn't the only arguing point, so it won't be a solution. As you suggested, let's just move on.