Man arrested for wearing T-shirt

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Freejack2

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2000
7,751
8
81
Yeah it is the right of the mall to remove them but if the mall security guards weren't such aholes the guy probably would have removed the shirt or left and not made a big deal. Instead the security guards were doing their usual fine job of putting people on the offensive...
 

TNTrulez

Banned
Aug 3, 2001
2,804
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
I'm not defending the actions of the mall (even though its only 15 mins. from me), but,
the mall is private property. It is not owned by the government. If the owners ask someone to leave, they must.

Lets put it in another perspective. If someone was on your lawn wearing clothing offensive to you and they refused to leave your property after you asked them to, wouldn't you call the cops.

Granted, this seems like a really stupid move by the mall owners but illegal, I don't think so.

Not that is unless you liberals think that mall owners somehow forefeit their rights to allow who they want on their premises.

Again, on the face of it, I think what the mall did was stupid. But I don't think it was illegal.

Using your logic if the mall asked all the black people to leave, it would still be legal? I think not.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: speed01
I think that if some people went and had a shirts made reading "Inspections Don't Work" and "Bomb Iraq Now" and proceeded to put them on and walk around the mall the same would have happened. However, people would be pretty quick to point out how said shirt could cause a disturbance.

Speed
Good Point. It seems to me that those who are Anti War seem more intolerent of those who are for the War, at least publicly. The Pro War intolerent Idiots seem to be more likely too spout their ignorance in the safety of the anonymity of their Keyboards (this forum for instance) where as the Anti-War Intolerent Idiots really don't mind demonstrating their ignorance for all to see...
 

speed01

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2001
1,167
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Good Point. It seems to me that those who are Anti War seem more intolerent of those who are for the War, at least publicly. The Pro War intolerent Idiots seem to be more likely too spout their ignorance in the safety of the anonymity of their Keyboards (this forum for instance) where as the Anti-War Intolerent Idiots really don't mind demonstrating their ignorance for all to see...

Well, that and the fact that it appears to be the "in thing" to be anti war.....therefore it's more acceptable for that group to be ignorant in public... And you know everybody wants to be "in" when out in public.....

Speed

Edited to remove extra word....
 

phaserx

Senior member
Feb 13, 2003
263
0
0
i used to go to this mall all the time .. it's a really screwy area.. that whole albany, NY area .. cops are such a$$h0l3z in that area..
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
I'm not defending the actions of the mall (even though its only 15 mins. from me), but,
the mall is private property. It is not owned by the government. If the owners ask someone to leave, they must.

Lets put it in another perspective. If someone was on your lawn wearing clothing offensive to you and they refused to leave your property after you asked them to, wouldn't you call the cops.

Granted, this seems like a really stupid move by the mall owners but illegal, I don't think so.

Not that is unless you liberals think that mall owners somehow forefeit their rights to allow who they want on their premises.

Again, on the face of it, I think what the mall did was stupid. But I don't think it was illegal.

Using your logic if the mall asked all the black people to leave, it would still be legal? I think not.


Attire is not in the equal protection clause of the consititution. Race is.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: cavemanmoron
this happened near me,
the company that runs this "Mall" seems to be a buncha "Richard cranium's"
Well I think they are going to regretting their actions. Nothing will attract Liberal outrage and the accompanying press like the perception that their civil liberties were violated.
 

phaserx

Senior member
Feb 13, 2003
263
0
0
Originally posted by: cavemanmoron
this happened near me,
the company that runs this "Mall" seems to be a buncha "Richard cranium's"

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Pyramid owns that mall, right?

I know Pyramid owns the mall in Pittsfield, MA (The Berkshire Mall) where i used to live by, and it's so messed up there it's not even funny.. they have NO clue how to run that mall and i'm surprised it hasn't gone bankrupt and shutdown yet..
 

cavemanmoron

Lifer
Mar 13, 2001
13,664
28
91
Originally posted by: XCLAN
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We're probably not hearing the entire story, thanks to left-bent MSNBC. They were probably too "in your face" about it; they could have been loud, disrupting, etc.

exactly...you know damn well that these people didnt get arrested for the shirts...what morons


actually the man who was arrested is a Lawyer,and No moron, he did not resist arrest,


" "Man arrested at Crossgates for wearing peace T-shirt
Shopper charged after refusing to take off shirt that mall store made for him, bearing slogans "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance"

By CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer
First published: Wednesday, March 5, 2003

GUILDERLAND -- An attorney for the state was arrested and hauled into court after refusing to take off a T-shirt that said "Give Peace a Chance" while shopping at Crossgates Mall.


PAUL BUCKOWSKI / TIMES UNION
Stephen Downs of Selkirk displays the T-shirts he and his son were wearing at Crossgates Mall on Monday.


This is at least the second time in recent months that mall security asked people wearing T-shirts with peace slogans to leave.

Steve Downs, 60, of Selkirk, said he was minding his own business Monday when he refused to remove the shirt and was charged with trespass.

"My point was I'm not trying to convert anybody," Downs said Tuesday. "This was a statement of where I was in my life."

He had purchased the shirt in a shop in the mall shortly before the arrest. The store put on the lettering while he waited: "Peace on Earth" on the front and "Give Peace a Chance" on the back.

His son, Roger Downs, 31, of New Baltimore, an ecologist, also bought a shirt. It read "No War With Iraq" and "Let Inspections Work."

"When they asked me to take it off, I took it off," Roger said. "I think it was ridiculous. I guess the way we see this is we feel the mall has a right to control assembly, not want large protests or large special interest groups or rallies. We were just individuals with T-shirts on, and we were shopping. We weren't talking to people or handing out leaflets."

Numerous calls to Crossgates Marketing Director Sarah Nieves regarding mall policy were not returned.

Heidi Siegfried, interim executive director of the Capital Region chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said, "We have the position that the public space in the mall should be a First Amendment protected activity. Even when they have the right to control and prohibit ... someone shouldn't be removed when doing activity consistent with the normal uses of the mall."

On Dec. 21, about two dozen anti-war protesters wearing pro-peace T-shirts and carrying signs were asked to leave Crossgates. The group complied.

The incident with the father and son occurred shortly after 7 p.m. in the food court. They said they were asked by two security guards to take off their T-shirts, leave or be arrested.

"I don't think we have to take off the T-shirts," said Steve Downs, chief attorney in the Albany office of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The guards returned with a Guilderland police officer and, "It was the same routine all over again," the father said. "I said 'OK, arrest me.' "

The cop talked to him for an hour after he was handcuffed, Downs said, trying to get him to drop the whole thing and take the shirt off.

"I didn't want to do that," Downs said. "They were just doing their duty. They were trying to be very peaceful. They didn't want any confrontation."

He was repeatedly told the mall was private property and what he was wearing was unacceptable, the same as if he went to someone's home wearing something unacceptable.

"I said it's not the same thing, it's not a good analogy," said Steve Downs, who insisted he wasn't protesting or demonstrating by wearing the shirt.

Guilderland Town Justice Kenneth Riddett released Downs on his own recognizance and set a return date of March 17. Trespass, a violation, carries a maximum of 15 days in jail. A fine or conditional discharge with community service is more commonly given. ""


 

JoeBaD

Banned
May 24, 2000
822
0
0
TNTrulez,

Why not? If you're black and I'm a bigot, why can't I ask you to leave my property? I wouldn't, but I sure as hell could. What makes a mall different? Do they accept federal money? What if I accept black employees but refuse black customers?

No Red, I don't know local law. Just trying to make sense of the world.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: SammySon
We're probably not hearing the entire story, thanks to left-bent MSNBC. They were probably too "in your face" about it; they could have been loud, disrupting, etc.
EXACTLY

For the love of God...this idea that the media is on a liberal agenda out to get you is really old.

der Fox News has the same story.

I imagine that your opinion would be different if the man were wearing a shirt with a giant heart and Dubbya's picture on it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled years ago that malls are like town squares or marketplaces and therefore people do have free speech while they are in them.
Not-uh, got proof?
Yes-huh. While malls and shopping centers are not entirely public places, they are not entirely private places either (not like a person's home for example). They are considered public places under private ownership. As a general rule, the ownership can only suppress free speech that is offensive, distruptive, likely to promote violence or cause riot, or in competition with the mall's merchants who otherwise pay for the right to sell there.
This entire issue, however, is much contested and does vary from state to state.
The original Supreme Court ruling was in 1968, Amalgamated Food Employees Union v Logan Valley Plaza, in which the Supreme Court granted full free speech rights to the public in malls and shopping centers because it determined that malls and shopping centers were the equivalent of a town square or business district. In 1976, in Hudgens v NLRB, the court nearly reversed itself on the "town square" concept, yet still retained partially the idea that reasonable free speech is still protected even though it is private property. That same opinion was later affirmed (as an individual state right "to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.") in 1980's Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins.
Reference Link
I do not know the particular NY law regarding this type of scenario.
 

Sundog

Lifer
Nov 20, 2000
12,342
1
0
Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

I'd like to follow this case in court. Would be fun to go and watch the proceedings.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: SammySon
We're probably not hearing the entire story, thanks to left-bent MSNBC. They were probably too "in your face" about it; they could have been loud, disrupting, etc.
EXACTLY

For the love of God...this idea that the media is on a liberal agenda out to get you is really old.

der Fox News has the same story.

I imagine that your opinion would be different if the man were wearing a shirt with a giant heart and Dubbya's picture on it.

No sh!t...people are completely blind to their bias.

This was ridiculous.

 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
"Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers," the statement read.

This was from Fox News, and if that is indeed correct then seems pretty open and shut.

There were being a nuisance to customers and therefore asked to remove their shirts and/or leave.
 

UDT89

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2001
4,529
0
76
damn instant exposure for their shirts............I want this to happen to me.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: Babbles
"Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers," the statement read.

This was from Fox News, and if that is indeed correct then seems pretty open and shut.

There were being a nuisance to customers and therefore asked to remove their shirts and/or leave.

Except that the defendant's story does not agree with that at all. It's word against word at this point.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Babbles
"Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers," the statement read.

This was from Fox News, and if that is indeed correct then seems pretty open and shut.

There were being a nuisance to customers and therefore asked to remove their shirts and/or leave.

Disrupting how? By wearing shirts?

 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: Freejack2
Yeah it is the right of the mall to remove them but if the mall security guards weren't such aholes the guy probably would have removed the shirt or left and not made a big deal. Instead the security guards were doing their usual fine job of putting people on the offensive...

While I'm largely in support of 'em. Also think about a situation where you were in a mall, shoppin. You're asked to leave. You have the incorrect expectation that it is your right to be there, when it seems that the truth is that you are invited into their shopping center. No clue on what the legal types say, just thinking how I would react. Yep, I'd get defensive and yep, I'd probably get arrested.

(Hmm. There were too many (or few) thoughts smooshed into that mush of words. Must... get.. food...)
 

Aceshigh

Platinum Member
Aug 22, 2002
2,529
1
0
I have no problem with him being arrested for trespassing if he was asked to leave and refused to do so. Like others have said shopping malls are private property and most have rules stating that if you are dressed in a manner which creates trouble or disturbances you may be asked to leave. Same thing applies to someone dressed in a bunch of gang paraphenalia. Once the mall management (represented in this instance by mall security) asks that you leave, if you remain there you are in fact trespassing.

These fools wanted to protest and spread their message, and they should have done it in a public place where they had a right to be. Not in a shopping mall.

I think this is really funny. That dude got owned. And no, I don't think he will get anywhere by filing lawsuits. The mall is on the right side of the law in this case.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
You kid yourself. You would think it was wrong too if someone asked you to leave the mall for wearing whatever t-shirt is in your closet.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
haha i'm more surprised by the responses by some of the idiots on this board than what the cops did.

Property violation? Trespassing? Disturbance of others?

Give me a break.

Yes a mall is private property but that doesn't mean that we should be able to single out a man and his son who were peacefully, passively showing support for the anti-war movement. As a business owner, should I start kicking out all customers and employees that enter my building and wear "remember 9/11" shirts because "it could bring back painful memories to people?" Just becase we own property does not give us ethical justification to throw anyone out.

I've seen plenty of T-Shirts that are FAR more disturbing that this, such as "FVCK OFF," shirts with Confederate flags, shirts with skulls and crossbones, etc. etc.

The funny thing is the same posters on here that are saying they have every right to throw thow those guys out would probably have a big problem if some Muslims were in their mosque somewhere in the U.S. talking about how great Osama Bin Laden is.

hypocrites.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |