Woman Arrested at Fahrenheit 9/11 Showing...
http://www.allaroundphilly.com/site/news.c..._id=17782&rfi=6
Woman cited for passing out voter registration forms
GINA ZOTTI,
Staff Writer 06/29/2004
EAST CALN -- She said she didn’t scream fire in a crowded theater.
All she did was hand out voter registration forms to movie patrons on their way out of the controversial film "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Saturday night.
Because of that, Lani Frank, of Easttown, doesn’t understand why -- or feel it was right -- that she was handcuffed and cited at the Regal Cinemas by police.
State police said Frank was in a place of business and causing a disturbance. They said she refused to leave and, for that, was cited for disorderly conduct. The citation, much like one a person would receive for a traffic violation, is a summary offense.
But, Frank contends that she was not making a disturbance and was on her way to her car before police motioned her back to ask her questions.
The police arrived after Frank had a discussion with a manager and security guard at the theater, she said.
Frank was inside handing out the forms to movie-goers on their way out of the sold-out 7:50 p.m. shows Saturday night.
"I was handing out the forms in the theater, but I was not making any mention of party affiliation or candidates," she said. "I never said anything negative to anyone."
Frank said there were many people who took the forms and many who thanked her for making them available.
She said that on her way into the theater, she saw another woman who was handing out the forms but had run out.
"Everybody’s been doing it all over the place," Frank said. "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave."
From California to Florida, there were reports of other voter registration drives during the opening weekend of the Michael Moore film.
The movie, which gives Moore’s take on what happened to the country after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and how the Bush administration used the event to push what he said was its agenda to go to war with Iraq, brought in $21.6 million in the box office this weekend, despite only playing at 848 theaters nationwide.
Still in the theater lobby, as the crowds were making their way outside, Frank said she was approached by the theater manager and told she wasn’t allowed to be doing what she was doing because she was on private property.
She said she told the man that she was not handing out any campaign literature, and the group, including Frank’s husband, walked out together -- she contends she was not escorted out but was leaving regardless.
She said she continued outside with her husband and chatted with friends on the way to the car when troopers called her over to speak.
They took her license and information and she said she asked why she was not allowed to hand out the forms if she was outside on public property.
"I might have been raising my voice, but I wasn’t screaming and yelling and waiving," she said.
On the contrary, she said she believed the "very nature" of the police being at the theater is what caused the disruption.
"Now they (bystanders) were paying attention, before they were just chit-chatting with friends," she said. "They started to get curious."
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.
"They didn’t need to take me into custody. I wasn’t inciting a riot," she said.
Frank said that she intends to fight the citation on principle that she should not have been required to leave at all because of her actions in handing out the forms.
"My assumption is that what I did was not legally wrong," she said. "If I’m found to be incorrect, I’ll pay the fine and say I’m sorry. But, I don’t believe I’m wrong ..I think they overreacted."
Acting alone in handing out the forms, not with Democratic committee, Frank said she was enjoying the night out with her husband and friends.
While she assumed those who attended the movie would be sympathetic to her political viewsand the way she would vote, Frank said her main objective was to encourage people to vote regardless of their party affiliation.
Frank said she is against the war in Iraq and felt the citizens of the country have been misled on the government’s reasons for going to war.
She said she continued outside with her husband and chatted with friends on the way to the car when troopers called her over to speak.
They took her license and information and she said she asked why she was not allowed to hand out the forms if she was outside on public property.
Think what you will about this (I personally think it's rather high-handed myself and, admittedly without the benfit of having been there, the theater manager could probably have done a lot better job of handling it). But I'm sorry, when you're in the parking lot of a movie theater, you're not on "public property." And there is fairly well-established case law that the owners of a privately-owned space that is open to the public, such as a mall or shopping center, DO NOT have to allow political protests or other activities on their property if they don't wish to.
Sure, but then the charge should be "trespassing" not "disorderly conduct with the intent to create a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."
The second one sounds more like a picket line. She was just passing out papers. Not blocking anyone.
She wasn't causing a disturbance and wasn't harming anyone. The theater manager asked her to leave and she was doing that right after she finished.
She didn't even suggest which party people should register under. How is handing out voter registration forms a political protest? How is it a disturbance? How is it anything that could be construed as disorderly conduct?
If anything the theater manager should have thanked her for providing a service to his patrons.
If she waited until she finished to leave and he had asked her to leave before that then she was in the act of trespassing.
The rest was a bit much though.
She wasn't charge with trespass and it's doubtful she could have been since she left right after she was asked to leave. She continued handing out registration forms while explaining to the manager that she wasn't handing out campaign literature, and wasn't promoting any candidates or political parties, etc. By the time the conversation was over, she left of her own accord.
Fine. I'll start passing out gun permit applications after the showing of Bowling for Columbine. I won't even tell folks which type of gun they should acquire as I feel it is a deeply personal decision.
Fine. I'll start passing out gun permit applications after the showing of Bowling for Columbine.
I kind of like that idea.
I'd have no problem with that at all, although I don't know of many theaters still showing that movie.
Fine. I'll start passing out gun permit applications after the showing of Bowling for Columbine. I won't even tell folks which type of gun they should acquire as I feel it is a deeply personal decision.
If you wish. I hope you weren't trying to point out a way this could "backfire".
"I might have been raising my voice, but I wasn’t screaming and yelling and waiving," she said... Now they (bystanders) were paying attention,
It sounds like this is where the "disorderly conduct" came into play. I suspect she was making a scene once the cops started questioning her, and was ultimately arrested for being belligerent, but wants to make it seem like she was arrested for what she was originally doing.
Good point. But is talking loudly to cops disorderly conduct?
Well, if people can be arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts, backtalk could be a felony.
So Radar, you really think the free speech right of a random individual off the street trumps the property rights of the owner? Doesn't this constitute an unjust taking of the owner's property (albeit temporarily) for a use of which he doesn't approve? Does the answer change if a) the location is different (let's say a supermarket, or a gas station, or a private residence) rather than a movie theater? Does it change if the "speech" involved is different? (we already tossed out gun permits.. what about gym memberships? library card applications? A blood pressure screening?)
Our rights don't change depending on whose property we're on. We have the right to free speech anyplace we are. If the owner of the property you're on dislikes what you're saying, they may ask you to leave their property and in this case that's what happened and the lady complied with the request and left.
Nobody had thier rights violated.
Did the theater managament overreact in calling the police? From the story as presented, I'd say Yes. But it sounds an awful lot like she was resistant when initially asked to leave the lobby ("For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave"), and then it sounds like she continued handing out flyers in the parking lot, which is NOT public property, after being asked to stop. And she continued long enough for the theater management to phone police, and for the police to arrive.
If that's true, she was violating the rights of the theater owners by continuing the unwanted action on their property despite their having asked her to leave. She probably should have been charged with tresspassing.
This story is very one-sided, and I'd wager the theater management's version is decidedly different, and the truth somewhere in between.
She was originally standing outside the actual theater as people were exiting the movie. As people were leaving the theater she was giving them voter registration forms. The theater manager asked her to stop and while she was handing out the forms she tried to argue her case and explain that she wasn't handing out campaign literature, or endorsing any political party or candidate, and she wasn't causing a disturbance.
I don't know about you, but I attend a lot of movies and it takes about 5 minutes to clear a theater out completely. She most likely finished handing out the voter registration forms while they were still debating the issue and then she left without even being asked to leave by the manager. The manager had not asked her to leave, but had asked her to stop handing out voter registration forms.
She then left the theater and was in the parking lot on her way to her car. Some time after she left the theater but before she reached her car the cops arrived and motioned her to come over. Then she was arrested. She hadn't violated anyone's rights, created a disturbance, or violated any laws but she was arrested.
She most likely finished handing out the voter registration forms while they were still debating the issue and then she left without even being asked to leave by the manager. The manager had not asked her to leave, but had asked her to stop handing out voter registration forms.
The article contradicts your assumptions:
They said she refused to leave and, for that, was cited for disorderly conduct.
"Everybody’s been doing it all over the place," Frank said. "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave."
She WAS asked to leave, and refused. The theater management was within their rights regarding their property. I think they reacted poorly, and if I were in the woman's place I'd have likely done the same thing, but that doesn't make the behavior legal. She paid the consequences for disregarding the property owner's order to leave the premises.
It really sounds, not unlike the film itself, that a lot of information is being withheld.
If it only takes 5 minutes to clear out a theatre then it only takes 30 seconds to walk to one's car yet the police were called and responded between the time she was asked to leave and when she actually left. No way that whole exchange was inside of a minute or two.
But, all that aside, no one has the right to a captive audience on private property without the permission of the owner. Heck, I bet you'd be pretty hacked if that same person showed up on your front porch after all your friends were leaving from a party and handed a flyers of one sort or another. Imagine how you would feel if she didn't leave until long after you called the police and gave you lip the whole time.
The article portrays the woman as the victim. Maybe its the other way around. The police sure thought so and while some police are jackboots, others just want to keep the peace.
She didn't refuse to leave, she just didn't leave as fast as someone thought she should have. I would love to know how long all of this took.
She
DID leave the property owners premises and wasn't even forced to do so. Nobody escorted her out.
Still in the theater lobby, as the crowds were making their way outside, Frank said she was approached by the theater manager and told she wasn’t allowed to be doing what she was doing because she was on private property.
She said she told the man that she was not handing out any campaign literature, and the group, including Frank’s husband, walked out together -- she contends she was not escorted out but was leaving regardless.
She said she continued outside with her husband and chatted with friends on the way to the car when troopers called her over to speak.
They took her license and information and she said she asked why she was not allowed to hand out the forms if she was outside on public property.
I'll have to look up the location of the theater, but I'm pretty sure it was at a mall somewhere as most theaters are nowadays. That means they probably had a police station within 60 seconds of them within the mall itself.
It's the one at the Wegman's strip mall in Downingtown right?
I don't know the area, so I couldn't answer. I was trying to figure that out from the story. I've found 8 Regal theaters in the Philly area, and I'm only assuming it's the Philly area since it's a Philly newspaper. Where is Easttown?
I've never been to Philadelphia.
She DID leave the property owners premises and wasn't even forced to do so. Nobody escorted her out.
But she didn't leave when she was asked. She did eventually, in her own sweet time, but not right away. I find it interesting how your value system seems to be dynamic. You have spent a lot of keystrokes describing how one's physical property is sacred, and that any crime against one's property is a crime against the individual.
Example:
The simple and undeniable truth is that classic liberalism (libertarianism) holds property ownership (regardless of how the property was created) as the most sacred of all rights because property ownership is where our rights stem from.
Yet here, you support this woman... a person who tries to play the victim card while admitting that she didn't leave the property when she was asked to. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm genuinely curious where the distinction is in your mind. Why is the theater's legitimately-owned property NOT sacred? Why the apparent inconsistency in your principles?
What if she had been handing out something else,....like Watchtowers? Does it make a difference that she was doing a "public service"?
She DID leave the property owners premises
Unless the parking lot itself was donated by the local government or something equally unlikely, then the parking lot is private property, and
she had actually NOT left the property while she was still in the parking lot.
jinx, as far as I can tell from the article, it's the one on West Chester Pike (Rt. 3) about halfway or so between Newtown Square and West Chester. It's a relatively large strip mall with the theater, a Genuardi's, Al E. Gator's, and a number of other smaller stores & restaurants. And the shopping center is off by itself--there are no residential or commercial buildings immediately bordering it.
Steve, I don't think so, here's a good
link. It's the one in Downingtown. And there's a link to a picture if you scroll down.
As an aside...
It's weird how much this area has been in the news lately isn't it? Smarty, Nick Berg... other stuff I can't think of now...
Why Can Shopping Malls Limit Free Speech
In summary, sometimes they can and sometimes they can't. The Supreme Court deferred to state law on the issue.
Pruneyard was an invitation from the high court to the states to amend and interpret their own state constitutions to permit free speech in private forums if they so desired. But 23 years later, only six states have joined California in recognizing a state constitutional right to speak and assemble on private property: New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania (and several of them have waffled after doing so). Even the states conferring these broader speech rights do so only on two types of private property—shopping malls and non-public universities—and the only speech protected there is political speech.
Unless the parking lot itself was donated by the local government or something equally unlikely, then the parking lot is private property, and she had actually NOT left the property while she was still in the parking lot.
...
It's a relatively large strip mall with the theater, a Genuardi's, Al E. Gator's, and a number of other smaller stores & restaurants.\
If it's a strip mall, and the parking lot isn't exclusive to the theater, then the owner of the lot is whoever the theater leases the mall space from.
"I was handing out the forms [SIZE=5]IN[/SIZE] the theater, but I was not making any mention of party affiliation or candidates," she said. "I never said anything negative to anyone."
She said that on her way [SIZE=5]INTO[/SIZE] the theater, she saw another woman who was handing out the forms but had run out.
"Everybody’s been doing it all over the place," Frank said. "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why[SIZE=5] I didn’t leave."[/SIZE]
The woman was on private property, pure and simple. A property owner has every right to decide what takes place on his/her own property. I'm having a garden party. A man shows up with Micky Mouse fliers, possibly with/without my permission. The first man runs out of fliers and a second man arrives. I tell the second man that he does not have my permission to distribute Micky Mouse fliers on my property and ask him to leave. Instead, this man enters my garden, distributes fliers against my permission, and then walks back to his car. The police arrive and the man plays innocent: "Well, here I am at my car, ossifer. And besides, everyone else was doing it!" Is the man innocent? NO! Have my rights as an owner of private property been disregarded? YES! I am highly surprised that a Libertarian such as Radar would suddenly welcome government intervention over the rights of a property owner in this instance. The woman must have been handing out Libertarian party propaganda along with her voter registration forms. :headshake
East Caln Township is near Coatesville, IIRC.
Easttown is near West Chester. While they aren't at separate ends of the world, they aren't especially close to each other.
Since the police response was PSP (PA State Police) from the Embreeville Barracks, the response time is NOT quick. The distance to the station is at least 20 minutes. That assumes that the Troopers were not out dealing with something else at the same time.
Also, movie theater managers HATE hassles. The last thing they want to do is call the police, because that information then shows up in the local newspapers. If folks get a bad impression of that particular theater, they'll go elsewhere. If they called the cops, she more than likely had become a bitch on wheels.
Also, if she were set up in front of the exit doors handing out voter registration forms (or any other kind of literature) she was representing a hazard or nuissance. This would also be the case if she had posted herself in the lobby.
I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ... "Help, help! I'm being oppressed!!"
As an aside...
It's weird how much this area has been in the news lately isn't it? Smarty, Nick Berg... other stuff I can't think of now...
I think it may have something to do with the fact that you can't swing a dead cat in Chester County without hitting a large, active Quaker Meeting House.
The woman must have been handing out Libertarian party propaganda along with her voter registration forms. :headshake
Not likely seeing as how Lani Frank (2nd to the right -in the pink shirt) is the Vice President of the National Women's Political Caucus of PA. Here's a pic lifted from
the Chester County Democratic Committee.
She is quite active in local politics (not that there's a thing wrong with that - just making the point that she's no wet-behind-the-ears volunteer).
Steve, I don't think so, here's a good link. It's the one in Downingtown. And there's a link to a picture if you scroll down.
My bad ... I was looking at the town the woman is from, Easttown, and transposed that to Westtown, which is where the Regal I described is. Never mind.
Yet here, you support this woman... a person who tries to play the victim card while admitting that she didn't leave the property when she was asked to. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm genuinely curious where the distinction is in your mind. Why is the theater's legitimately-owned property NOT sacred? Why the apparent inconsistency in your principles?
She was asked to stop distributing the voter registration forms. I see no information showing that the theater manager asked to leave the property (And the theater manager most likely doesn't own the property). She had a discussion while still handing out the forms about why she shouldn't be prevented from handing them out, and by that time the theater was empty, and she left without being forced to leave. Assuming the guy even did ask her to leave, she did comply and she left within a matter of minutes. What do you think she should do, drop all her belongings and run out of the theater screaming so she doesn't get shot?
My principles are always consistant. If I ask someone to leave my property and they leave, I have no complaint. The woman didn't hang around for 12 hours before going. She left within a matter of minutes which is acceptable for any reasonable person.
What if she had been handing out something else,....like Watchtowers? Does it make a difference that she was doing a "public service"?
She probably wouldn't have found the audience as receptive, but why not?
Unless the parking lot itself was donated by the local government or something equally unlikely, then the parking lot is private property, and she had actually NOT left the property while she was still in the parking lot.
If she was in the MALL parking lot, the theater owner has no authority to force her to leave the parking lot. Only the owners/operators of the mall could do that. And even if she was still in the theater's parking lot, she was on her way out. If someone is asked to leave do they have a 1 minute time limit? What if they've got a bad hip or are in a wheelchair? Do they get more time? I say as long as they are moving in the direction opposite the theater, they are leaving. We're talking about a matter of minutes, not hours.
Since the police response was PSP (PA State Police) from the Embreeville Barracks, the response time is NOT quick. The distance to the station is at least 20 minutes. That assumes that the Troopers were not out dealing with something else at the same time.
Given that it takes no more than 5-10 minutes to hand out the forms to every single person exiting a theater, it's not likely that they were 20 minutes away. In fact it's more likely that they were in the immediate area and responded in 1-2 minutes.
Also, movie theater managers HATE hassles. The last thing they want to do is call the police, because that information then shows up in the local newspapers.
Having worked in theaters when I was a kid, I can tell you that is absolutely and utterly false. Theater managers often create hassles where there are none and treat patrons like shit.
Also, if she were set up in front of the exit doors handing out voter registration forms (or any other kind of literature) she was representing a hazard or nuissance. This would also be the case if she had posted herself in the lobby.
A person standing in a lobby our outside of a theater exit handing out forms is not a hazard, or a nuissance in any way, shape, or form. If someone wants a form, they take one, if they don't they don't. No nuissance, and certainly no hazard. Nobody said she was standing in the middle of the doorway blocking people.
I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ... "Help, help! I'm being oppressed!!"
Funny, it reminded me of the scene in the Rodney King beating video.
Here's a clue for you people. You have free speech no matter where you are. If you're on someone elses property who doesn't like what you're saying, they can ask you to leave. If you are asked to leave and you comply, you haven't trespassed. No matter what property you own, you do
NOT have the right to tell anyone what they may or may not say. You may only ask them to leave if they do, or tell them your house rules so they'll know what to avoid saying so you don't ask them to leave.
This woman had no way of knowing the theater manager would act the way he did. After all she was just handing out government voter registration forms, which is normally considered a civic duty and a service to the community. When asked to stop handing them out, she pleaded her case with the guy and then she left. She did absolutely nothing wrong at any point what-so-ever.
People, stop. Look at the story journalistically. It is practically a TOTAL FABRICATION. Read it again with this thought in mind:
Apparently the "reporter" only talked to one person: FRANK.
The reporter got one quote from the state police - not an individual officer, such as the one making the arrest. Here's guessing she got it from an ordinary press release or something, not from an individual. And where is the quote from the theater manager? Wouldn't that point of view be not only important, but critical to the reader's understanding of the event?
There is no quote, because this "reporter" got the entire story from Frank and wrote the story almost entirely from her point of view. (A point of view which we can now assume the "reporter" shares.)
Which is typical of the Daily Lack O' News, as vsp can confirm. You read that paper long enough, you start being able to translate the "news" into the "real story" pretty quickly.
I doubt that much that is closer to the truth will be revealed ... but our speculations are closer to it than what was printed.
EDIT TO ADD: I'm sure the reported actually had several sources. Ms. Frank's friends were there too, and they saw the WHOLE thing.
Here's the Philly Inquirer version written by someone other than a Bush-hatin' ho :)
Woman arrested at '9/11' film
[size=-1]By Jennifer Moroz[/size]
[size=-1]Inquirer Staff Writer[/size]
<!-- begin body-content --> A Chester County Democratic committee woman was arrested Saturday night for allegedly causing a disturbance while handing out voter registration cards at a local showing of the movie
Fahrenheit 9/11.
Lani Frank, 49, of Berwyn, was handing out the cards about 10:15 p.m., as moviegoers at the Downingtown Regal Cinema Stadium 16 poured out of the documentary that slams President Bush and his decision to go to war in Iraq.
State police said they got a call reporting a disturbance. When troopers showed up at the cinema, just off Route 30 in East Caln Township, Frank had moved from the theater lobby to the parking lot.
"She continuously refused to leave the area and continued to cause a disturbance and left the troopers no choice but to arrest her," Cpl. Lawrence Wallick said.
Police charged Frank with disorderly conduct, a summary violation akin to a traffic citation.
Last night, Frank said she would fight the citation. Frank, who said she was acting as an individual and not as a representative of the Democratic Party, denied causing any disturbance.
"All I was doing was offering a convenient way to acquire a government voter registration form," she said. "I made no mention of candidate, of party, of how they should vote."
She said she had questioned the troopers' authority to stop her from handing out the cards in a public parking lot and refused to leave when asked because she believed she had the right to be there.
A theater manager declined to comment when contacted last night.
I see no information showing that the theater manager asked to leave the property (And the theater manager most likely doesn't own the property).
Did you read the article you posted? Or any of the replies?
This reply, for instance, where I cited two phrases in the article indicating that she was asked to leave, and refused. Yes, she eventually left, but by all indications she didn't leave until about 20 minutes later, after a prolonged, disruptive scene. This woman is no victim, she's bitchy and self-important, and had no respect for the theater's property rights. She was then belligerent with the police officers, who were lawfully acting on behalf of the theater to remove her from the property.
I know, it's tempting to buy into this lady's bullshit "woe is me" story, and to make the cops out to be bad guys, but let's not be gullible. Even the newspaper's one-sided account of the "victim" can't hide the fact that she was in the wrong.
Interesting: The movie seems to have been playing at no fewer than FOUR theaters closer to Ms. Frank's home.
edit: 'scuse me. Make that FIVE theaters. Four of the five are outside of Chester County, however, which was likely important to Ms. Frank's press coverage.
Yes, she eventually left, but by all indications she didn't leave until about 20 minutes later, after a prolonged, disruptive scene.
All indications show that? How about you show me a single indication that it was 20 minutes. Just one will do since there are none to be found in the story. And she was also not disruptive when handing out the forms. She was quietly handing them out without disturbing anyone. Nobody but the manager had a problem with it and it was the manager who started the whole disruption by telling her to stop. If he had just allowed her to finish and leave as she was doing, there wouldn't have been a disruption.
This woman is no victim, she's bitchy and self-important, and had no respect for the theater's property rights. She was then belligerent with the police officers, who were lawfully acting on behalf of the theater to remove her from the property.
This woman is absolutely a victim and the theater manager does not have any property rights, but if he did have property rights, they would not include telling anyone what they could or couldn't say and as was proven in someone else's post, they coudn't even prevent the handing out of political flyers if PA state law allowed it. All they can do is ask the woman to leave. Whether or not she was asked to leave, she did leave and that is the point. She left. And she was arrested for exercising her rights. Property rights don't mean you have the right to silence those on your property.
And of course she questioned the officer's right to stop her. She was exercising her rights, and wasn't creating a disturbance and now she had two cops in her face while she was peacefully on the way back to her car.
she's bitchy and self-important,
Yeah? How do we know this? Probably in the wrong I'll give ya, but bitchy and self important? Is Hiibel bitchy and self important too?
Yeah? How do we know this? Probably in the wrong I'll give ya, but bitchy and self important? Is Hiibel bitchy and self important too?
Granted, perhaps that was an unfair assumption on my part. I came to that conclusion based on the fact that she was being argumentative, disruptive and refused to leave, all on Private Property, and then gives an account which is so obviously self-biased and full of half truths. I know people like that, and THEY are bitchy and self-important, so I projected those qualities onto her.
Not to mention that comments like "She continuously refused to leave the area and continued to cause a disturbance and left the troopers no choice but to arrest her," aren't usually made about people who are friendly, cooperative and polite. But I wasn't there, maybe the cops and theater manager were being assholes first. But the fact of the matter is that she was on private property, asked to leave, refused, and created a scene.
The Hiibel situation is different... the theater managers and police were not in the wrong when insisting that Lani Frank leave the property. By law, they could ask her to leave if they disagree with her actions, if they didn't like the blouse she was wearing, or the way she had her hair styled. Whereas the officer questioning Hiibel was trying to use authority which (at that time) he didn't legally possess.
Interesting: The movie seems to have been playing at no fewer than FOUR theaters closer to Ms. Frank's home.
edit: 'scuse me. Make that FIVE theaters. Four of the five are outside of Chester County, however, which was likely important to Ms. Frank's press coverage.
On the flip side, the Regal Downingtown's probably the nicest of those (and likely the newest), and makes an attractive target for encountering crowds due to its size. That's where _I_ saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the following day, oblivious to all of this hubbub, even though there were probably theaters closer to where _I_ live showing the film.
I do agree that the Daily Lack'o News is barely suitable for fishwrapping.
No, the truth is she didn't refuse to leave because she left. Only AFTER she left did the cops call her back and arrest her. The cops weren't "forced" to arrest anyone.
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?
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.
§ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :smack:
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. :smack:
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....
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.
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.
is handing out voter registration forms considered solicitation?
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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. :)
I do agree that the Daily Lack'o News is barely suitable for fishwrapping.
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, 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.
Oh, you mean like the way you knew the exchange took 20 minutes?
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..
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.
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 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.
If that's Libertarianism, I want no part in it. I prefer freedom, and the property rights that come with it.
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.
is handing out voter registration forms considered solicitation?
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.
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.
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.
Oh, you mean like the way you knew the exchange took 20 minutes?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Virtually is NOT
all. It obviously was NOT acceptable there, or they wouldn't have asked her to leave. Reasoning is our friend.
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.
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.
That is libertarianism.
I have no doubt that you believe that.
This woman did not violate anyone's rights, especially not property rights and anyone who claims she did is a liar.
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.
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.
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.
In fact, if the neighbor's on vacation, the pizza guy could actually camp on the front lawn and the cops would be powerless.
Powerless for tresspassing but harassing is a different offense. ;)
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.
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.
Their sports section is good, though.
If you like high school football.
Long post warning:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 :)
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?
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.
i think they have until the cops get there to scram, yes?
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.
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.
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.
the rights of the lessee are a whole 'nother ball of wax.
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.
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.
And conversely, the theater owner can ask someone to leave the theater, but not the parking lot.
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
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.
She did manage to get off the property. She was in the mall parking lot
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [color=red]red[/color]:[list]
[*]He entered the home to take a nap. This is "[color=red]perfectly socially acceptable in virtially all locations without anyone being upset so most wouldn't assume you'd be put off by it.[/color]" "[color=red]If he had just allowed [him] to finish and leave as she was doing, there wouldn't have been a disruption.[/color]"
[*]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. "[color=red]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[/color]"
[*]After a few minutes of exchanges trying to explain himself, Mr. Zeller left the property of his own accord. He "[color=red]left within a matter of minutes which is acceptable for any reasonable person[/color]"
[*]The police arrived, and arrested him on a public street. This person "[color=red]was on their way to [his] car and wasn't disturbing anyone.[/color]"
[/list]
So, if we apply the logic Radar has been using in this thread, we can say that Mr. Zeller was the victim... "[color=red]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.[/color]" "[color=red]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.[/color]" The man didn't steal anything, so "[color=red]Once they had complied with the request to leave and were out of the building, the [homeowner] no longer had any valid complaints[/color]."
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.
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.
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?
How much does that change things?
It spins the analogy off into the land of the ridiculous.
[size=1]edit: Not unusual for this thread.[/size]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
"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.
Keep up the good work. With any luck you'll be able to form a rational thought soon.
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.
It's been fun arguing the semantics, though. Now what have we learned today, kids?
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?
Okay Radar, HP...both of you have stated that you're not what the other claims. Point taken, can we move on?
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.