Guy arrested at Alaska State Fair for 'Impeach Obama'

[DefiantSix]

[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ppBZM88mHvQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ppBZM88mHvQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]


Not sure where I fall on this, and a lot of where I do wind up is going to depend upon the circumstances not caught on video.

Just putting it out for perusal for now.

edited to add: LINK here, because I'm not sure the embed isn't giving problems.

[NHSparky]

What's his DU name?

[Texacon]

Based on just the video I don't see where the guy did anything wrong (the LaRouche protestor).  From the sounds of the crowd I don't think most of them felt like he did anything wrong either.

Maybe there was something else before the camera was turned on ....

KC

[Chris_]

He was acting belligerent.  I'd like to know what happened before the video started filming.  If this guy was shouting at passerby's like he's shouting at security, then yeah, arrest him.

[Godot showed up]

He was acting belligerent.  I'd like to know what happened before the video started filming.  If this guy was shouting at passerby's like he's shouting at security, then yeah, arrest him.

From what I could see, the most likely scenario was he was standing around with his sign, and hurting no one, and occasionally discussing things or maybe just exchanging recognition with passersby. Now, I suppose he could have killed someone the grounds that day, or molested a kid, or was stealing wallets, but then you could suppose anything.

Then the guards came over, probably, let's be frank, because of someone's political opinion, guard or guards, or their boss, although the one who physically attacked the guy first (at about 3:33) seemed to really be enjoying it, so I suspect him of being behind it.

I don't know about the guy who identified himself as a state trooper but if he was one, he stepped over the line--this was by all appearances an unlawful arrest combined with assault and was done to shut him down because of the content of his sign. That is the most likely explanation.

The repeated calls from the crowd that "he wasn't doing anything" are pretty good comfirmation that he really wasn't doing anything except making a political statement in a place of open public gathering under state auspices. Larouchies are crazy, but this was wrong. You'd really have to sell yourself a bill of goods to believe that this didn't happen because his sign was "Impeach Obama"; along the lines of believing the GZ mosque isn't exactly what it appears to be, a deliberate continuance of jihad.

[NHSparky]

He may not have been "doing anything" per se, but he WAS in fact on private property, and when security asked him to move along and he refused, he was then trespassing.

[Godot showed up]

He may not have been "doing anything" per se, but he WAS in fact on private property, and when security asked him to move along and he refused, he was then trespassing.

Was it? Even if it was, it was at that time a place of public accommodation, as it was the state fair. He was no more trespassing than anyone else who'd bought a ticket.

[NHSparky]

Was it? Even if it was, it was at that time a place of public accommodation, as it was the state fair. He was no more trespassing than anyone else who'd bought a ticket.

Not necessarily.  The ticket is an implied contract that states you will abide by the terms and conditions which may or may not be listed on the ticket.  Just because it's a state fair doesn't mean it is supported by the state government or any government entity for that matter.

[vesta111]

Not necessarily.  The ticket is an implied contract that states you will abide by the terms and conditions which may or may not be listed on the ticket.  Just because it's a state fair doesn't mean it is supported by the state government or any government entity for that matter.

Sparky, I agree with Godot,  People were walking around with shirts with a political message, ---------Visit the White house, there are at any time people wearing shirts or have signs calling for the impeachment of the President.

When I was there with my Mother she was aghast at why these people were allowed to do such a thing.     One woman was yelling about her son who was taken prisoner and the president would not even speak with her.    MY Mom called her a crazy lady and was upset that I paused to listen to her problem.   Other people from her generation agreed with my mom as she had raised her voice,  a woman standing in line behind us told me to listen to my mother as that woman was deranged.

This woman was not deranged, she was desperate to get her child back.

Years later I equate this with closer to home things.  EXAMPLE:

Your 8 year old child goes missing and the police refuse to search for him as they are tied up with a bank robbery.  You cry out to your neighbors to help search but they all have a BBQ, a golf date or a birthday party to go to.

  Will you just sit back and except this crap or will you go screaming into town and demand some help ??  Will you sacrifice your dignity to beg on your knees help find your child.?

I have gone way off subject but I watched the video of the incidence of the old man with his sign and the reaction of the crowd.  It brought back the memory's of the reaction of the people who were around me in DC by the older generation that should know better.

[Quote from Sparky] 


Not necessarily.  The ticket is an implied contract that states you will abide by the terms and conditions which may or may not be listed on the ticket.  Just because it's a state fair doesn't mean it is supported by the state government or any government entity for that matter.


Sounds like he agrees with the making of rules and laws that we have no knowledge of, and the law makers have no idea what the new rule is all about.

[Eupher]

If nothing else, the guy's actions were creating a sideshow for which extra tickets weren't being sold. The private corporation that owns the state fair was shut out of the proceeds. 

Notice how the security guy got on the phone to check with his boss? Just to make sure that there wasn't some sort of private arrangement with ticket-selling?

Book 'im, Danno. And then give him back his sign. If he gets the right permits to demonstrate, he can do so in a more public venue.

[Thor]

To be fair: http://www.facebook.com/notes/alaska-state-fair/official-statement-regarding-incident-on-fairgrounds-26-august-2010/462011531666

The man WAS trespassing. There were two ways to handle this incident. 1.) Ignore the guy and let him either make a fool of himself to some people or a an advocate for others. 2.) What they DID, ask him to move along. The Alaska State Fair IS private property. The right of free speech doesn't really exist on private property. (One could use CC or any other forum as other examples) Since he didn't comply, he immediately became "in the wrong".

Furthermore, the "protester" was over-acting. There were a couple of places where I think the security guards got a little "heavy handed". I also don't like where one of the security guards apparently drew his firearm and had it at "low ready", sneaking away from the camera. There was NO need for that because nobody was in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. (except maybe the protester)

[Godot showed up]

Not necessarily.  The ticket is an implied contract that states you will abide by the terms and conditions which may or may not be listed on the ticket.  Just because it's a state fair doesn't mean it is supported by the state government or any government entity for that matter.

It's still a place of public accommodation, Spark--and, physically, an open area of general and unstructured relaxation and celebration, not, say, a public auditorium with a fixed presentation agenda. If anything, the contract implied by the sold ticket is that you are not trespassing because you bought that ticket. By taking the money (consideration) for a  ticket, the state was granting access for that money. And the fact that this was under state auspices makes the first amendment protection even stronger.

Do you really believe he was not shut down becaue of the specific content of his sign? If he'd been holding a sign that read "It's All Bush's Fault," do you think the same thing would have happened? I don't. And that's at the heart of first amendment protection--the various levels of government may not create content-based limitations on free speech. Well, except in incitement to riot, fighting words, obscenity, and the like, and you have to get over a VERY high bar to invoke those.

[Godot showed up]

To be fair: http://www.facebook.com/notes/alaska-state-fair/official-statement-regarding-incident-on-fairgrounds-26-august-2010/462011531666

The man WAS trespassing.

It wasn't trespassing. Once he bought the ticket, he had every right to be there. Just because they call it trespassing on their facebook page doesn't make it so. It's NOT trespassing if, for example, you sit down ina  restaurant and they agree to serve you. At no time could the restaurant claim that you are trespassing. That's the whole point of a place being defined as a place of public accommodation. All kinds of private property are places of public accommodation. Nearly every retail business is. So much more is a park selling tickets for the right of access. Let me repeat that--the ticket was sold for the right of access.

[ColonialMarine0431]

Jumping to conclusions based on a few minutes of video is a libTURD reaction. I want to know all the facts.

[Godot showed up]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=74





U.S. Supreme Court
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)


Excerpts

Soon after appellees had begun soliciting in appellant privately owned shopping center's central courtyard for signatures from passersby for petitions in opposition to a United Nations resolution, a security guard informed appellees that they would have to leave because their activity violated shopping center regulations prohibiting any visitor or tenant from engaging in any publicly expressive activity that is not directly related to the center's commercial purposes. Appellees immediately left the premises and later filed suit in a California state court to enjoin the shopping center and its owner (also an appellant) from denying appellees access to the center for the purpose of circulating their petitions. The trial court held that appellees were not entitled under either the Federal or California Constitution to exercise their asserted rights on the shopping center property, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned, and that such result does not infringe appellants' property rights protected by the Federal Constitution. xcerpt:



(c) Nor have appellants' First Amendment rights been infringed by the California Supreme Court's decision. The shopping center by choice of its owner is not limited to the personal use of appellants, and the views expressed by members of the public in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures for a petition thus will not likely be identified with those of the owner. Furthermore, no specific message is dictated by the State to be displayed on appellants' property, and appellants are free to publicly dissociate themselves from the views of the speakers or handbillers. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 ; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ; and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 , distinguished. Pp. 85-88.



Just so it's clear, the shopping center lost on appeal.

[NHSparky]

A case which has since been overturned as well.  Solicitation can be prohibited on private grounds normally accessible to the public (think Target's policy, for starters.)

[Godot showed up]

A case which has since been overturned as well.  Solicitation can be prohibited on private grounds normally accessible to the public (think Target's policy, for starters.)

What case overturned this precedent? It would have to have been a USSC case. To be considered "overturning," it would have to be a full repudiation of the case, not just a different set of evidence leading to clarification/fine tuning. Spark, you're saying Pruneyard is completely removed from all case law consideration now?  All the resarch I've done this far has shown this to still be a landmark and guiding case, and if not overturned, applicable here. What case specifically overturned Pruneyard?

Also--he wasn't soliciting--hewasn't selling anything.

As a separate issue, by no means can he be considered a trespasser. He paid for a ticket and they allowed him in.




I just want to make sure I'm clear on this, Spark. You're saying that, in a place of open public accommodation on private property, the private property owners now have absolute control over what speech/expression may be spoke or expressed, a they see ft, regardless of the venue? The USSC has for years taken into account the nature of the venue on private property, eg, in my restaurant example above, the guy certainly would not be free to walk around with a big sign (that was just to answer the trespassing charge). But as with the mall above, they have, sensibly enough, considered parks and open spaces not dedicated to a specific function, like a restaurant, that are places of public accommodation, to not be subject to speech control by its owners, as long as the owners would have no resonable expecation of beign identified with the speech.

[Godot showed up]

http://news.findlaw.com/features/protester-rights.html

Private Property

Owners of private property generally have no responsibility to allow demonstrators or pamphleteers onto their property to communicate their messages since the U.S. Constitution applies to the government, not private actors.

The US Supreme Court has recognized an exception when private property acts as the functional equivalent of a municipality, however. In those cases - a "company town" set up for a company's workers, for example - the private property owner must respect free speech rights in areas that would be considered public forums, such as streets and sidewalks.

Moreover, certain state constitutions provide additional protections. The Supreme Court has ruled, for instance, that the California Constitution requires private property owners to allow speech in certain areas open to the public, such as the public spaces inside a private shopping center. The property owners may subject the speakers to reasonable regulations concerning their speech, however.

Well, I really, really hate to admit this, as it so seldom happens, but I could be wrong. I've looked at the Alaska Constitution and can find no extra protection of first amendment rights, as in the CA Constitition. But Spark, the last paragraph above has to be referring to Pruneyard. I don't think it was overturned. But the case wouldn't be operative without some greater protection of free speech rights under the Alaska Constitution.

I have to wonder, though, if private property operating as part of a State Fair isn't functioning as the state and/or municpality.

[Wineslob]

Had this been Code Pink...........................

[soleil]

It seemed to be going fine from what we can see UNTIL the law enforcement stepped in. I am not sure why they stepped in. Maybe there is something we don't see. Maybe they thought he was disturbing the peace. The people seemed to be behind him. It is a slippery slope. I personally have no problem with him being their with that sign or any other sign (that isn't against the law or extremely distasteful). He got a little disorderly AFTER they cuffed him, so it wasn't that. I don't know. I don't like it.

[NHSparky]

soleil--ever think that they WANTED to provoke a confrontation?  And that had there not been one, no video would have made it to the Innerwebz?

[soleil]

soleil--ever think that they WANTED to provoke a confrontation?  And that had there not been one, no video would have made it to the Innerwebz?

I think anyone who is protesting wants to provoke confrontation of some sort.

Maybe he should've gotten a permit. Maybe he got a little too rowdy. I am not sure by what I've seen. I do believe, though, in our right to protest as long as we can keep it peaceful. But it is hard to tell by this video if he was doing that. From what I do see, I don't like it.

[NHSparky]

From what I do see, I don't like it.

And in doing so, you play right into their hands.

[soleil]

And in doing so, you play right into their hands.

Why is that? You can't possibly know any more than I can if he was doing this for cameras. Only by what I can see, he doesn't seem like the type. But who knows. I have a problem with finding trouble when there is none. It gives cops a bad name, and they don't need or deserve it (for the most part).

[Godot showed up]

It seemed to be going fine from what we can see UNTIL the law enforcement stepped in. I am not sure why they stepped in. Maybe there is something we don't see. Maybe they thought he was disturbing the peace. The people seemed to be behind him. It is a slippery slope. I personally have no problem with him being their with that sign or any other sign (that isn't against the law or extremely distasteful). He got a little disorderly AFTER they cuffed him, so it wasn't that. I don't know. I don't like it.

Mark this on your calendar Soleil--we're exactly on the same page when it comes to both what we think happened here, and that we both believe he ought to have been left alone. The only thing is, it looks like I was wrong about his legal rights. It stinks, though.

Spark, my opinion is that whoever taped this had nothing to do with the guy. Half the attendees at least must have had camcorders. That's just my thought. So I don't think it was any kind of setup.  And if it was a setup, and they were trying to actually get security to act like a bunch of thugs and bullies by having one old guy hold up a sign, they succeeded admirably--but saying that's in some way wrong would be akin to saying undercover cops would be wrong to participate in a drug bust, that the criminals were set up.