Person Kicked Out of a Mitt Romney Event and Arrested.

[anaconda]

The people renting the property had control over the venue, and told the officer to order the man to leave. The man didn't, so he was trespassing.

I thought he went outside originally when the cops requested he do so. Did they not go all the way outside or something?...

 

[MJU1983]

I thought he went outside originally when the cops requested he do so. Did they not go all the way outside or something?...

I read it like he was arrested for simply questioning his overlord.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The Police are not private security. If this were private security the man would be asked to leave and if he were disruptive he would be physically thrown off the premises, in the same way a bar handles drunken patrons. Instead, "Mittens" Romney was able to hire militarized police officers (costumed statist goons) to imprison, identify, fingerprint, photograph and interrogate an innocent civilian who tried to stand up for his Natural Rights. That is a major problem for me in a country I call my own.

Bingo. In a just society, there is proportionate response. Was the man violating the property owner's rights? Maybe a little bit, depending what actually happened. But it was a public event! The public was invited! It could have been solved by just removing him from the property. Kidnapping the man and locking him in a cage is not an acceptable response.

 

[Mini-Me]

The more I hear, the more I think Romney is a complete control freak. He's starting to scare me.

LOL, of course he's a control freak. He's a narcissist running for the [officially] most powerful office in the world, with no principles regarding limiting himself. Remember, this is the guy that would "consult the lawyers" about starting a war all by himself, without Congressional input.

Bingo. In a just society, there is proportionate response. Was the man violating the property owner's rights? Maybe a little bit, depending what actually happened. But it was a public event! The public was invited! It could have been solved by just removing him from the property. Kidnapping the man and locking him in a cage is not an acceptable response.

THIS.

 

[mwkaufman]

Absolutely criminal trespassing, considering how strictly Paul views property rights it surprises me how many of his supporters don't see this for what it is.

 

[Mini-Me]

Absolutely criminal trespassing, considering how strictly Paul views property rights it surprises me how many of his supporters don't see this for what it is.

Read the thread. We agree that it was trespassing, and removing him from the property was fine, but the response beyond that was completely disproportionate and unjust...as is the idea that Romney can hire actual cops to do his bidding. When you consider proportionality, keep in mind that this isn't "home invader" trespassing, this is "invited guest who outstayed his welcome" trespassing.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If the guy is being straightforward, it sucks, but it still looks like criminal trespass to me. The Romney campaign looks heavy handed, but it is what it is.

First, let me offer thanks to the keen critics of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul escapes a literal mob of reporters, megaphone guy with boothat, sign-waving pigs in a convertable, and you people are rightly concerned with Ron's failure to shake a troll's ninety-year old mother's withered hand. You have a sharp eye for the details!

I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, all my cases would cite wikipedia as a reference:

There are several defenses to trespass to land; license, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii. License is express or implied permission, given by the possessor of land, to be on that land. These licenses are irrevocable unless there is a flaw in the agreement or it is given by a contract. Once revoked, a license-holder becomes a trespasser if they remain on the land. Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the England and Wales' Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest, or the California state constitution, which permits protests on grocery stores and strip malls, despite their presenting a general nuisance to store owners and patrons.[95] Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed by the plaintiff, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard.[96]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

Some select quotes from the article,

1. "Sir, we have to ask you to leave the premises, he said."

2. "'No, sir - we'll explain it to you outside.' I tried to ask a few additional questions to figure out what was going on, but he refused to answer. "Outside." I was intimidated. I gathered my things and walked past a group of citizens and press, humiliated and confused."

3. Outside, the officer said, "Sir, the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney's office in Manchester."


In sum, he was asked to go outside and outside he went. According to the story, explainations were to be offered... outside. "Outside" may be off the premsises for these purposes. Was the campaign event "outside" or was the guy now in publicly accessible parking? Guy was invited outside. He was enticed with a coy offer of explanation. Would he be trespassing there at other hours if not otherwise asked to leave the area?


4. I explained to the officer that there must have been some misunderstanding. Could I speak to someone from the campaign to clear this up? No. I'd have to leave immediately.

This next part is interesting,

I asked another question or two, and the cop had had enough: "You're under arrest." He took my things, handcuffed me behind my back, searched me, and tucked me into a nearby cruiser. A few minutes later, an officer removed me from the cruiser and had me lean up against another police car and spread my legs for a second search. Two or three TV crews had their cameras trained on us; I felt ashamed in a wholly unfamiliar way. I wanted to look directly at the cameras and explain what had happened, but I feared the police officers' reaction.

I was put into the second cruiser and driven away. The camera crews continued filming.
A protester - oh, did I mention that there was an actual protest there? - yelled, "Free the prisoner."

5. He is near a PROTEST? With PROTESTERS??? What is the protesters right to be there if this guy doesn't have the right? Would it not seem reasonable that he had left the premises? He had complied with the request to be outside? He was waiting for his explaination? Maybe the cop just lied to extract him from the situation. However, wiki lawyers!, you will note that trespass is a civil tort and not always criminal law. The cop shouldn't be lying to him.

Other article quotes indicate that this has little to do with any plant owner's property rights:

As they did so, they told me not to go back to "that area" when I was released. I indicated that I understood I wasn't permitted to be on the company's land or facilities, but surely I could go back to the street if I so chose -- it's public property, after all. Don't go back to that area, they repeated. If you go back, you might cause a disturbance or a riot, and you could be arrested for disorderly conduct.

And then the following exchange took place. I began to ask, "If I express my First Amendment freedoms --"

And one of the officers interjected, "--you'll [probably] be arrested." (I'm not entirely sure he said 'probably,' but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

I asked the officer if he could help me connect what he'd just read with my situation and understand why it would be a problem to return to the street outside the event. He told me that I might return and say things that "aren't what others think."

(It might have been "aren't what others believe" or "aren't what most others believe." I'm not 100% sure. But that was the essence of it.)

He set up an arraignment date, drove me to an ATM so I could extract the $40 bail commissioner's fee, and dropped me off at my car. And as he let me out of the car, he repeated the officers' advice from earlier: "Don't hang around this area." Apparently, even hours after the event had ended, the Romney campaign and the local police were still present, nibbling away at my freedoms.

Please don't ever be so concerned with defending the right of Romney to campaign unencumbered on private property so he can invade the private property of individuals in other countries and swat raid your house that you lose track of our fundamental freedoms.

Did you see the shit Ron Paul put up with at that Joe's diner - private property, "for Pete's sake!" - in New Hampshire? Could Romney survive an encounter with Vermain Supreme? Or would Vermain Supreme get a chest full of bullet holes?

I would like to see the other side of this story and the MSM tapes of the arrest. However, I think we know what there story is. This is how the powers behind Romney deal with stuff and it has nothing to do with private property. It was public police bought with private money to avoid anything that might possibly embarrass their kitten, Mittens.

 

[Mini-Me]

First, let me offer thanks to the keen critics of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul escapes a literal mob of reporters, megaphone guy with boothat, sign-waving pigs in a convertable, and you people are rightly concerned with Ron's failure to shake a troll's ninety-year old mother's withered hand. You have a sharp eye for the details!

I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, all my cases would cite wikipedia as a reference:



Some select quotes from the article,

1. "Sir, we have to ask you to leave the premises, he said."

2. "'No, sir - we'll explain it to you outside.' I tried to ask a few additional questions to figure out what was going on, but he refused to answer. "Outside." I was intimidated. I gathered my things and walked past a group of citizens and press, humiliated and confused."

3. Outside, the officer said, "Sir, the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney's office in Manchester."


In sum, he was asked to go outside and outside he went. According to the story, explainations were to offered... outside. "Outside" may be off the premsises for these puroses. Was the campaign event "outside" or was the guy now in publicly accessible parking? Guy was invited outside. He was enticed with a coy offer of explanation. Would he be trespassing there at other hours if not otherwise asked to leave the area?


4. I explained to the officer that there must have been some misunderstanding. Could I speak to someone from the campaign to clear this up? No. I'd have to leave immediately.

This next part is interesting,


5. He is near a PROTEST? With PROTESTERS??? What is the protesters right to be there if this guy doesn't have the right? Would it not seem reasonable that he had left the premises? He had complied with the request to be outside? He was waiting for his explaination? Maybe the cop just lied to extract him from the situation. However, wiki lawyers!, you will note that trespass is a civil tort and not criminal law. The cop shouldn't be lying to him.

Other article quotes indicate that this has little to do with any plant owner's property rights:










Please don't ever be so concerned with defending the right of Romney to campaign unencumbered on private property so he can invade the private property of individuals in other countries and swat raid your house that you lose track of our fundamental freedoms.

Did you see the shit Ron Paul put up with at that Joe's diner - private property, "for Pete's sake!" - in New Hampshire? Could Romney survive an encounter with Vermain Supreme? Or would Vermain Supreme get a chest full of bullet holes?

I would like to see the other side of this story and the MSM tapes of the arrest. However, I think we know what there story is. This is how the powers behind Romney deal with stuff and it has nothing to do with private property. It was public police bought with private money to avoid anything that might possibly embarrass their kitten, Mittens.

Great analysis. I took the article to mean the author was outside but still technically on the property, and the cop decided to be a hardass when the author continued to [politely] ask questions instead of immediately leaving. Under that assumption, it was technically trespassing...of the absolute most innocuous sort. Either way, everything from there went from harsh and corrupt to outrageous and corrupt.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Absolutely criminal trespassing, considering how strictly Paul views property rights it surprises me how many of his supporters don't see this for what it is.

From the article - our only source of information thus far - "Sir, the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney's office in Manchester." Assuming we agree the campaign has the right to boot someone, what happens if he was not at that protest?

The campaign is there at the permission of the plant owner to hold a public event. They secure the services of the cops. Did the campaign order this guy removed from the land outside the building? Or would they be satisfied keeping him with the other nearby protesters? Why did the campaign not have the protesters removed if they could have anybody arrested outside?

What evidence is there that the cop had authority to make independent decisions in this matter? If we agree the campaign identified him for removal inside, what is the evidence that the campaign expressed wishes outside?

Keep in mind another curious fact. This officer of the law claims to be on duty,

"We're working for the Romney campaign," he said. I asked if he was on duty; he said he was. My confusion deepened. So was he working for the town of Hudson today, or for the campaign?

I can accept that he can be working for the campaign indirectly while working for the public directly. It is a stretch to think that he can discriminate on his own without a representative of the campaign there ordering the further removal - beyond outside - and arrest of this guy?

Thugs are like bears, they're more afraid of us than we are of them. Would the campaign have had this guy arrested? If they did not, how is the property owner's intent being expressed? At what point does it go from owner, to campaign manager, to campaign flunkee, to cop on duty? Did the owner intend for people to be arrested? This isn't a bar where they deal with malcontents and have bouncers expressly for the purpose of - not arresting - but removing people generally as far as the sidewalk or parking lot.

Did Romney ask, "Hey Chip! Can we hold a little event here? And can we remove people from the building? And can we further arrest these people for asking too many questions once outside the building and near the protestors whom we both know will be there? Thanks Chip!".

Criminal trespass or cop out of control?

 

[BamaAla]

First, let me offer thanks to the keen critics of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul escapes a literal mob of reporters, megaphone guy with boothat, sign-waving pigs in a convertable, and you people are rightly concerned with Ron's failure to shake a troll's ninety-year old mother's withered hand. You have a sharp eye for the details!

I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, all my cases would cite wikipedia as a reference:

Your bolded section is the pertinent section. License was given by the possessor of the land, but was revoked. Once that license was revoked, he was committing misdemeanor criminal trespass and subject to arrest. The second section you bolded will be a question for a judge at a bench (possibly but unlikely a jury) trial. Chances are the charges will be dropped, but the fact remains that he was trespassing and was subject to arrest.

Some select quotes from the article,

1. "Sir, we have to ask you to leave the premises, he said."

2. "'No, sir - we'll explain it to you outside.' I tried to ask a few additional questions to figure out what was going on, but he refused to answer. "Outside." I was intimidated. I gathered my things and walked past a group of citizens and press, humiliated and confused."

3. Outside, the officer said, "Sir, the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney's office in Manchester."


In sum, he was asked to go outside and outside he went. According to the story, explainations were to offered... outside. "Outside" may be off the premsises for these puroses. Was the campaign event "outside" or was the guy now in publicly accessible parking? Guy was invited outside. He was enticed with a coy offer of explanation. Would he be trespassing there at other hours if not otherwise asked to leave the area?

All points for debate, but he had already committed the crime at this point in time.

4. I explained to the officer that there must have been some misunderstanding. Could I speak to someone from the campaign to clear this up? No. I'd have to leave immediately.

Absolutely he had to leave immediately; at this point he was in the act of committing a crime.

This next part is interesting,


5. He is near a PROTEST? With PROTESTERS??? What is the protesters right to be there if this guy doesn't have the right? Would it not seem reasonable that he had left the premises? He had complied with the request to be outside? He was waiting for his explaination? Maybe the cop just lied to extract him from the situation. However, wiki lawyers!, you will note that trespass is a civil tort and not always criminal law. The cop shouldn't be lying to him.

You're right, the leo shouldn't have lie to him, but I would venture a guess that he did so to avoid any potential volatile situation inside the event. Immoral? Maybe. Illegal? No.

And to the wiki attorney: What he did, according to the letter of the law, was misdemeanor criminal trespass. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm

Please don't ever be so concerned with defending the right of Romney to campaign unencumbered on private property so he can invade the private property of individuals in other countries and swat raid your house that you lose track of our fundamental freedoms.

I'm not. I'm concerned about my property rights. If I want someone off of my property, I want them off immediately. This guy didn't not acquiesce with that request, yet people are defending him. That is concerning to me especially considering the crowd.

Please don't let your hatred for Romney cloud your judgment concerning my rights.

Did you see the shit Ron Paul put up with at that Joe's diner - private property, "for Pete's sake!" - in New Hampshire? Could Romney survive an encounter with Vermain Supreme? Or would Vermain Supreme get a chest full of bullet holes?

I would like to see the other side of this story and the MSM tapes of the arrest. However, I think we know what there story is. This is how the powers behind Romney deal with stuff and it has nothing to do with private property. It was public police bought with private money to avoid anything that might possibly embarrass their kitten, Mittens.

As far as I know, the property owner didn't revoke the license of those at the diner; the rest is just conjecture.

Bottom line: the arrest looks to be good at present. There may surface evidence to the contrary, but until that time, I'm convinced that this wasn't a bad thing in the grand scheme.

 

[BamaAla]

I just did a little light reading on the guy's blog and I don't believe he was there to pick a candidate. You can go over and check it our for yourself, but the slant I got from reading it didn't lead me to believe that he would be searching for a Republican candidate to vote for. If I was betting, I would put money that there is more to the story than we are getting right now.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Backpack=OWS=Not allowed on premises

I see Romney has his "White Shirts" watching closely for a controlled public appearance.

 

[mmadness]

How many times do we need to say this? WWRPD? (What Would Ron Paul Do?)

DON'T stir up trouble or waste your time by going to other candidate events. Focus on getting new voters for Ron Paul. People who are going to Romney events are undecideds who will look badly upon Ron Paul crashers. Or they are already in the Romney camp and you are wasting your time, just making them more aware of RP's support. We WANT them to underestimate us, people.

 

[affa]

I always take such obvious stories like this with a grain of salt, and so should anyone with a brain. Anyone who thinks that this kid's side of hte story is 100% factual is very naive.

Yes, I agree. We should only accept stories presented to us by authorities or the media.

/sarcasm

 

[affa]

I'm not. I'm concerned about my property rights. If I want someone off of my property, I want them off immediately. This guy didn't not acquiesce with that request, yet people are defending him. That is concerning to me especially considering the crowd.

I disagree. If you told a man to leave your house suddenly, it's completely acceptable for him to be taken aback and ask 'why?'. When you repeat yourself, and say, 'come outside with me', and he does, all is well. That brief moment between being told and leaving is never going to go away; it is not reasonable to expect someone at a public event told to 'leave' is going instantaneously turn around and walk out without asking 'why?'.

More importantly, in this situation, he was asked to go outside. He did, and followed the cop to where he was led to. It is here he got arrested. Why?

He went to where the cop led him. If he was still on the property, then the cop should have led him off the property. And if he was off the property, he certainly had the right to ask questions. Before ever arresting him, the cop should have at least said something like 'I'm done answering questions. Follow me off this private property, and don't come back else you'll be trespassing.'

And that's not even getting into the issue of why on duty police were working for Mitt.

 

[kylejack]

He isn't real descript on what exactly happened, but I am assuming that he was not continuing to leave while asking his questions. He could take a lesson from Dave Ridley, who asked questions while slowly leaving a hotel he was told to leave. Dave beat his charges, because the prosecutor couldn't prove that Dave ever stopped leaving, or that a person must leave at a certain speed.

 

[doctorfunk]

I don't think these "buying" the police incidents are that out of the ordianry. The police also have a duty to protect the people there, so they have every right to be at the event. Since often times these events that necessitate police presence add additional load to an already busy police force, I don't think it's that out of line to give some money to the local police to help ofset the costs associated with an increased police presence.

He was asked to leave and it sounds like he did. I don't really see that as trespass, but I guess it could be. I believe what should be implied here is that the private property owner allowed the campaign to make use of the owner's private property rights on his behalf.

Should they have the right to ask him to leave? Yes.
Should they have the right to pay the police for creating an increased demand on the local force? Yes.
Should the police have arrested him? No.

 

[angelatc]

I really really really hope Paul does not sale out and team up with mittens.

Some one should address me starting with ' ye of little faith'

Dude. Not. Gonna. Happen.

 

[mwkaufman]

I disagree. If you told a man to leave your house suddenly, it's completely acceptable for him to be taken aback and ask 'why?'. When you repeat yourself, and say, 'come outside with me', and he does, all is well. That brief moment between being told and leaving is never going to go away; it is not reasonable to expect someone at a public event told to 'leave' is going instantaneously turn around and walk out without asking 'why?'.

They were outside the building but still on private property. Whether you're inside a structure or not is unimportant.

 

[moostraks]

How many times do we need to say this? WWRPD? (What Would Ron Paul Do?)

DON'T stir up trouble or waste your time by going to other candidate events. Focus on getting new voters for Ron Paul. People who are going to Romney events are undecideds who will look badly upon Ron Paul crashers. Or they are already in the Romney camp and you are wasting your time, just making them more aware of RP's support. We WANT them to underestimate us, people.

please take the time to realize this is just an article passed on regarding a 'journalist' and his experience with the police and stop lecturing RP supporters who had nothing to so with the situation...