PDA

View Full Version : Person Kicked Out of a Mitt Romney Event and Arrested.




Gumba of Liberty
01-12-2012, 09:05 PM
Who: Matt Bieber is a graduate student in politics, religion and public discourse at Harvard University's Kennedy School and Divinity School.
What: Arrested at a Mitt Romney Event
When: Before the Primary
Where: New Hampshire
Why: The Police State
How: Goons in Costumes

Welcome to America. Comment and tell his readers to vote Ron Paul so we can end Civil Rights violations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-bieber/i-was-kicked-out-of-a-mit_b_1203068.html

ronpaulfollower999
01-12-2012, 09:09 PM
Ouch. Romney was in my town today. Was tempted to go but didn't feel like throwing up today. The local media is really whoring him up.

Bruno
01-12-2012, 09:11 PM
I just read this on his Blue Republican facebook post. Pretty crazy wake up story.

blazeKing
01-12-2012, 09:12 PM
I've heard of people getting attacked and manhandled just for asking him why Goldman Sachs gives huge donations to both him and Obama.

This is the new America...you lick their boots or disappear.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-12-2012, 09:18 PM
Woooooooah

It gives us an idea of what a Police Nation Romney would run.

This is scary stuff.

wilcox71
01-12-2012, 09:24 PM
Don't go to Romney events go knock on doors you make a bigger impact knocking on doors

wc01127
01-12-2012, 09:28 PM
Police nowadays will lie and abuse your rights just to find a reason to arrest you. Have heard many stories like this in the past few years and it is very frightening.

Salvial
01-12-2012, 09:42 PM
Don't go to Romney events go knock on doors you make a bigger impact knocking on doors

This guy was still undecided and looking to consider Romney for the evening!

69360
01-12-2012, 09:44 PM
Romney's event was on private property. They can ask anyone to leave they want to. Writer of the article didn't leave when asked. Was it a legal arrest? Sure it was. Does it reflect badly on Romney's campaign? If the writer is honest about the situation, it sure looks bad.

I hope nobody here to goes on a rant and hope everyone respects property rights.

anaconda
01-12-2012, 09:48 PM
Can this fellow sue somebody?

anaconda
01-12-2012, 09:51 PM
Was it a legal arrest? Sure it was.

How was it legal? They could escort him out but how can they arrest him?

CJLauderdale4
01-12-2012, 09:52 PM
They did this in 2008 at the FAU debate to the Guilliani supporters by putting them behind a fenced area they called a "free speech zone". I got it on camera:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0RV-UeWkY

Created4
01-12-2012, 09:52 PM
Can this fellow sue somebody?

He can definitely show up in court and fight the charges. He can also do what he has done: publish everything and hope it goes viral. I hope it does. I hope the major networks pick this story up and he becomes the 2012 equivalent of Joe Plumber.

Gumba of Liberty
01-12-2012, 09:52 PM
Romney's event was on private property. They can ask anyone to leave they want to. Writer of the article didn't leave when asked. Was it a legal arrest? Sure it was. Does it reflect badly on Romney's campaign? If the writer is honest about the situation, it sure looks bad.

I hope nobody here to goes on a rant and hope everyone respects property rights.

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.

69360
01-12-2012, 09:53 PM
Can this fellow sue somebody?

For? Statements like yours are a big part of what's wrong with our country.


How was it legal? They could escort him out but how can they arrest him?

The Romeny event was on private property. The writer did not leave when requested. That's criminal trespass.

tremendoustie
01-12-2012, 09:54 PM
Romney's event was on private property. They can ask anyone to leave they want to. Writer of the article didn't leave when asked. Was it a legal arrest? Sure it was. Does it reflect badly on Romney's campaign? If the writer is honest about the situation, it sure looks bad.

I hope nobody here to goes on a rant and hope everyone respects property rights.

The "can't return to the street -- you'll be arrested if you use your first amendment rights" nonsense is absolutely unacceptable.

And he should have been given a final warning before being arrested.

69360
01-12-2012, 09:57 PM
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.

Property owners have rights. They can ask anyone to leave they want to.

jd603
01-12-2012, 09:57 PM
If the account is accurate there is grounds for a lawsuit. It is private property though, and if they asked you to leave and you did not then they had grounds to remove you. Did they charge you with trespassing?

Oh I just realized it wasn't YOU , you were just pointing out the article. I don't want to submit my login details to comment on his post really.

...and to the person who said filing lawsuits is what is wrong with this country I disagree, it's the only way the system allows you to push back , it's not frivolous at all.


Who: Matt Bieber is a graduate student in politics, religion and public discourse at Harvard University's Kennedy School and Divinity School.
What: Arrested at a Mitt Romney Event
When: Before the Primary
Where: New Hampshire
Why: The Police State
How: Goons in Costumes

Welcome to America. Comment and tell his readers to vote Ron Paul so we can end Civil Rights violations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-bieber/i-was-kicked-out-of-a-mit_b_1203068.html

kylejack
01-12-2012, 10:03 PM
Yeah, it's a legal arrest. I suspect he's being a little disingenuous about why he was at Romney's HQ earlier, but whatever.

ryanmkeisling
01-12-2012, 10:04 PM
It has been getting worse for decades, the citizens of America have been complacent, as well as elected all of the people who have made things this way. All of a sudden everyone is talking about the obvious results of that type of lifestyle like this just magically happened one day: it has been a gradual process, slow and gradual. It will be a sad future if Ron Paul is not elected because they are on the verge of complete control.

Gumba of Liberty
01-12-2012, 10:04 PM
Property owners have rights. They can ask anyone to leave they want to.

The police officer was not the property owner.

CJLauderdale4
01-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Property owners have rights. They can ask anyone to leave they want to.

Not if it's open to the public. This is why Ron was against the Civil Rights Act, because no private property owners with doors open to the public had to serve "the public" no matter what.

anaconda
01-12-2012, 10:08 PM
For? Statements like yours are a big part of what's wrong with our country.



Yes, inquiring who is eligible for a civil suit is the type of thing that is ruining our country.

kylejack
01-12-2012, 10:10 PM
The police officer was not the property owner.
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.

kylejack
01-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Not if it's open to the public. This is why Ron was against the Civil Rights Act, because no private property owners with doors open to the public had to serve "the public" no matter what.
An event that is open to the public can still ban individuals, just as a restaurant open to the public can decide they don't want this guy eating there.

jd603
01-12-2012, 10:15 PM
If he was asked to leave and did not, the officer was justified (as it was open to the public). If he did not ask or this guy was on his way out and just asking some questions then the officer did not have grounds to arrest and charge him. He still could have removed him from the property however.


Not if it's open to the public. This is why Ron was against the Civil Rights Act, because no private property owners with doors open to the public had to serve "the public" no matter what.

jd603
01-12-2012, 10:17 PM
If this is true then yes, he could have been charged with trespassing.


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.

jersdream
01-12-2012, 10:23 PM
This is only one side of the story. I would like to hear the officer's side and the Romney's campaign side.

kfking
01-12-2012, 10:36 PM
First, I suspect that the man isn't saying everything straightly. Second, even in his version of the story he was arrestable for trespassing.

The two things that get me about the story are the ability to hire police, and the fact that he couldn't talk to the media nor be in the street near the event.

Carehn
01-12-2012, 10:40 PM
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'

kylejack
01-12-2012, 10:52 PM
First, I suspect that the man isn't saying everything straightly. Second, even in his version of the story he was arrestable for trespassing.

The two things that get me about the story are the ability to hire police, and the fact that he couldn't talk to the media nor be in the street near the event.
Ah, I missed that part in the first skim. Yeah, that wasn't a lawful order, so the guy was under no obligation to obey it. It sounds like the cops just didn't want to do any more paperwork, and the law allows them to lie. If he went back, though, he should probably take a video camera and document.

kfking
01-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Ah, I missed that part in the first skim. Yeah, that wasn't a lawful order, so the guy was under no obligation to obey it. It sounds like the cops just didn't want to do any more paperwork, and the law allows them to lie. If he went back, though, he should probably take a video camera and document.

I doubt this is law in NH but in my state (Illinois) it is a felony to tape a police officer without his permission. It is ridiculous.

kylejack
01-12-2012, 11:10 PM
I doubt this is law in NH but in my state (Illinois) it is a felony to tape a police officer without his permission. It is ridiculous.
New Hampshire in fact has used wiretap law to arrest people for recording police, but the Glick v. Cunniffe decision has put an end to it.

Glick covers:

District of Maine
District of Massachusetts
District of New Hampshire
District of Puerto Rico
District of Rhode Island

Mickeys
01-12-2012, 11:13 PM
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.

traviskicks
01-12-2012, 11:17 PM
Don't go to Romney events go knock on doors you make a bigger impact knocking on doors

Ya, dont harass the other candidates, makes us look bad.

MJU1983
01-12-2012, 11:25 PM
https://twitter.com/#!/mju1983/status/157693214655119360


Sums up @MittRomney. Use OUR tax funded police against us, unlawfully arresting peaceful citizens: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-bieber/i-was-kicked-out-of-a-mit_b_1203068.html #SCGOP Mitt + #NDAA?

Feel free to RT! :)

MJU1983
01-12-2012, 11:28 PM
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.

They could have confused him with Luke Rudkowski...if so, the kids story could very well be 100% factual. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulPMQ-0fFZE

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-12-2012, 11:32 PM
Ya, dont harass the other candidates, makes us look bad.

Just to make sure people are seeing this right, the OP is not the one telling the story. He just linked to a story he found. The blogger never said anything about his being a Paul supporter.

That aside, does Paul have people profiling who shows up at his events?
Would Pauls people have someone removed because they were beleived to be someone identified at a protest?

BamaAla
01-12-2012, 11:39 PM
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.

Mckarnin
01-12-2012, 11:46 PM
The more I hear, the more I think Romney is a complete control freak. He's starting to scare me.

anaconda
01-13-2012, 12:50 AM
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
01-13-2012, 12:57 AM
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
01-13-2012, 01:00 AM
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
01-13-2012, 01:29 AM
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
01-13-2012, 01:29 AM
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
01-13-2012, 01:33 AM
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
01-13-2012, 02:05 AM
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
01-13-2012, 02:16 AM
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
01-13-2012, 02:26 AM
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
01-13-2012, 02:51 AM
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
01-13-2012, 03:07 AM
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
01-13-2012, 03:29 AM
Backpack=OWS=Not allowed on premises

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

mmadness
01-13-2012, 04:54 AM
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
01-13-2012, 05:37 AM
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
01-13-2012, 06:01 AM
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
01-13-2012, 08:15 AM
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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GqaUfaFLg4

doctorfunk
01-13-2012, 09:52 AM
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
01-13-2012, 10:04 AM
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
01-13-2012, 10:21 AM
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
01-13-2012, 10:48 AM
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...

kylejack
01-13-2012, 10:50 AM
The police officer explained to him that the people controlling the property had ordered him to leave. The police officer fully fulfilled his duty for supporting a trespassing charge. The guy was told why they wanted him to leave and then ordered to leave.

He can ask questions, but only if he's doing so while leaving. The trespassing charge is 100% legit, regardless of whether or not it makes Romney look bad.

mmadness
01-13-2012, 10:53 AM
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...

Point taken, but this has happened with a Newt event in NH and a couple of YouTube whiny videos have already been made making Dr. Paul look bad. I'm sure some of our "supporters" have also done this a few other times. Best to nip this in the bud in as many related threads as possible.

gb13
01-13-2012, 11:18 AM
For some reason, the article isn't populating when I open the link... it's just a blank page with the HuffPo banner on the top. Anyone have an alternative source?

Wolfgang Bohringer
01-13-2012, 11:23 AM
Reminds me of the martial law they set up for the 2008 convention in St. Paul.

I can't wait for Tampa! The majority Ron Paul delegation will look kind of funny adorned in their football helmets which they will need in order to fend off the truncheons in order to cast their votes for Ron.

The Free Hornet
01-13-2012, 12:11 PM
They were outside the building but still on private property. Whether you're inside a structure or not is unimportant.

The evidence suggests strongly he was ordered outside the AREA as it extended beyond the private property and he was explicitly told he couldn't be on the street nor could he express his opinion off the premises. Now, I'm being clever with the timeline, but who is to say he didn't have the right to question the cops. If you're standing on private property, but told to "get out of town", what the hell are you supposed to do? Lick boot and leave? WWRD? (R=Rambo!).

Cameras were on him and if he didn't resist arrest, I don't see a charge. Did a cop grab his arm to escort or nudge him out? If not, why not? I'll concede there are good reasons for the cop to not want a physical altercation but bouncers are able to use some force to aid people off the premises. As mentioned, why did the officer cease his escort outside the building when he should have continued the escort until off the premises/private property? Find the map from google of this place (below), it would have been a 10 foot walk.


"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.

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

Note how the cop is all forceful and seems to have no problem getting him to the desired location, outside. Why stop there if that's not where he is supposed to be?


More stuff: Matt's Blog:
http://www.thewheatandchaff.com/mitt-romney-arrest/


The private property in question:
http://www.gmfco.com/


If you google the location, you will see it is a typical industrial place. 80% building, 15% parking, 5% greenery (edited). Once you are outside the building, you are effing outside. Without an attempt to get back in, I don't see this going anywhere.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Gilchrist+Metal+Fabricating+Company

kylejack
01-13-2012, 12:29 PM
The evidence suggests strongly he was ordered outside the AREA as it extended beyond the private property and he was explicitly told he couldn't be on the street nor could he express his opinion off the premises.
Yes, but ordering him to stay off the sidewalk isn't a lawful order, so he wasn't obligated to obey that order. He was, however, required to leave the property when ordered to do so.


Cameras were on him and if he didn't resist arrest, I don't see a charge. Did a cop grab his arm to escort or nudge him out? If not, why not? I'll concede there are good reasons for the cop to not want a physical altercation but bouncers are able to use some force to aid people off the premises.
The cop had no obligation to grab him, and I can understand why a cop might be reluctant to grab someone with an apparent history of activism. He ordered the man to leave and the man didn't. He is then subject to arrest. Never count on a cop to give you the benefit of the doubt.


As mentioned, why did the officer cease his escort outside the building when he should have continued the escort until off the premises/private property? Find the map from google of this place (below), it would have been a 10 foot walk.
The man was ordered to leave the property and apparently stopped walking. What do you mean continue the escort? He hadn't laid hands on the man and apparently didn't intend to unless he refused to leave.

helmuth_hubener
01-13-2012, 12:35 PM
This man's crime was not trespass. This man's crimes were "unforgivable uppitiness to an Exalted Officer of the Law" along with "failure to grovel" and "indecent display of backbone in the presence of children of the State."

AFPVet
01-13-2012, 12:44 PM
He should've imposed a fee schedule....

The Free Hornet
01-13-2012, 12:54 PM
The man was ordered to leave the property and apparently stopped walking. What do you mean continue the escort? He hadn't laid hands on the man and apparently didn't intend to unless he refused to leave.

The only source of the story says,

1) He was told to leave the building and was escorted out of the building.

2) He was told to leave "area" including public property like the street outside the building.

3) He did not refuse to leave. He left immediately and was escorted out the building.

How is it that when you are standing on private property and are told to leave the AREA, you are arrested for trespass on private property? If Matt is given illegal orders, why should he interpret that as a legal order to leave the property? A private security guard is not going to tell people they can't stand on a public street or express their first amendement rights.


The man was ordered to leave the property and apparently stopped walking.

The cop said an explanation would be offered outside, I assume this is when the walking stopped. It is not clear who initiated the stop, but if the guy was on his way off the premises and cop stops to argue with him after previously promising to explain it outside, then this could be interpreted as permission to be on the premises for the purpose of discussion. At this point, the campaign is no longer present and there is no clear link between the property owner or campaign and this cop.

The cop doesn't own this property. Maybe that point is lost on people. I don't see how he failed to get the guy off the property unless the cop didn't escort Matt towards the street (there is a West lot on premises but it is bordered by trees).

affa
01-13-2012, 01:12 PM
They were outside the building but still on private property. Whether you're inside a structure or not is unimportant.

that completely misses my point. he was asked to leave, and followed the cop to where the cop took him.

Anti Federalist
01-13-2012, 01:19 PM
Private property rights...horseshit.

This man is running for the most powerful office on the face of the earth, and the right to order all of us about 24/7 and kill thousands at his whim.

Fuck him, he lost any right to "privacy" and the ability to control the debate long ago.

Every one of these monsters ought not to be able to show their face in public without getting heckled and abused 24/7.

RP didn't have the OWS people that heckled him arrested, did he now?

helmuth_hubener
01-13-2012, 01:49 PM
Fuck him, he lost any right to "privacy" and the ability to control the debate long ago.

Every one of these monsters ought not to be able to show their face in public without getting heckled and abused 24/7.I completely and heartily agree.

kylejack
01-13-2012, 01:53 PM
that completely misses my point. he was asked to leave, and followed the cop to where the cop took him.
and then:

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.
At which point he should have left and didn't.

helmuth_hubener
01-13-2012, 01:58 PM
At which point he should have left and didn't.Most importantly, he back-talked! He sassed! He dared to question this Aggression Enforcement Officer and his high, mighty Authoritaay.

I am shocked and appalled that we still have uppity malcontents with the gall to perpetrate such atrocious outrages against our Beneficent Officers of the State.

Off with his head!

Captain Shays
01-13-2012, 03:42 PM
I've heard of people getting attacked and manhandled just for asking him why Goldman Sachs gives huge donations to both him and Obama.

This is the new America...you lick their boots or disappear.

I hope that's not proof in itself that Romney will be our next president

BamaAla
01-13-2012, 04:10 PM
Most importantly, he back-talked! He sassed! He dared to question this Aggression Enforcement Officer and his high, mighty Authoritaay.

I am shocked and appalled that we still have uppity malcontents with the gall to perpetrate such atrocious outrages against our Beneficent Officers of the State.

Off with his head!

Nah, most importantly he was asked to leave private property and rather than respecting that request he wanted to stay and argue. He's lucky he just got arrested; if he had done this at any number of members on this board's property, he would have had a much worse day.

Anti Federalist
01-13-2012, 05:42 PM
Nah, most importantly he was asked to leave private property and rather than respecting that request he wanted to stay and argue. He's lucky he just got arrested; if he had done this at any number of members on this board's property, he would have had a much worse day.

The difference is that I did not come on your property first and claim the right to sieze the blood of your sons and the fruits of your labor.

helmuth_hubener
01-13-2012, 06:28 PM
Nah, most importantly he was asked to leave private property and rather than respecting that request he wanted to stay and argue. He's lucky he just got arrested; if he had done this at any number of members on this board's property, he would have had a much worse day.He wasn't asked by the property owner. For all we know the property owner was fine with him being there.

No, he was asked by the pigs. And pigs abusing their power never deserve respect, and you can quote me on that.

BamaAla
01-13-2012, 09:26 PM
He wasn't asked by the property owner. For all we know the property owner was fine with him being there.

No, he was asked by the pigs. And pigs abusing their power never deserve respect, and you can quote me on that.

The property owner had given the rights to the Romney campaign; it's much like they were renting.

ropa2012
01-13-2012, 09:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_E_-Qt66XBY

Anti Federalist
01-14-2012, 10:12 AM
////

damiengwa
01-14-2012, 10:41 AM
Romney's event was on private property. They can ask anyone to leave they want to. Writer of the article didn't leave when asked. Was it a legal arrest? Sure it was. ...
I hope nobody here to goes on a rant and hope everyone respects property rights.

When you hold an open event, it is reasonable that some of your control over your property is going to be ceeded to the hoard of whoever shows up. That's just reasonable. The man did nothing criminal. remember, trespassing is only such, if there is intent to cause harm. Where's the harm? Arrest? seriously.

In theory if the neighbors 5 year old kid comes into my yard and starts picking my flowers, i can shoot her, right? Is that a reasonable response?

The Free Hornet
08-12-2012, 10:21 PM
Boo ya.


Case Dismissed! Charges Dropped in My Bizarre Arrest at a January Romney Event (http://www.thewheatandchaff.com/case-dismissed/)

by Matt B. on July 15, 2012

In January, I had one of the weirder and more unsettling experiences of my life – after (possibly) being mistaken for a protester, I was removed and then arrested for “criminal trespass” at a public Mitt Romney event in Hudson, NH.

Recently, I got some great news: the case has been dismissed! No charges, no trial, and thanks to the wonderful pro-bono legal work of Andru Volinsky (with an assist from Jim Rosenberg), no legal fees. (Tony Barash, former Director of the American Bar Association Center for Pro Bono, put me in contact with Volinsky, so I’m very grateful to Tony as well!)

Thanks to everyone who expressed their support, and to everyone who participated in what became some very worthwhile conversations about our political process.


For those who said, "it's trespassing blah blah blah", this video is for you!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY_BuLo5z-M

sailingaway
08-12-2012, 10:37 PM
When you hold an open event, it is reasonable that some of your control over your property is going to be ceeded to the hoard of whoever shows up. That's just reasonable. The man did nothing criminal. remember, trespassing is only such, if there is intent to cause harm. Where's the harm? Arrest? seriously.

In theory if the neighbors 5 year old kid comes into my yard and starts picking my flowers, i can shoot her, right? Is that a reasonable response?

well now with HR347 or whatever it was that made it a jail term for tresspassing in an area where someone guarded by secret service is, even if you don't know about the law.....

This guy is lucky it was before that bill was passed.

When Romney was wherever he was yesterday, his cars were called a 'motorcade'.

TrishW
08-13-2012, 10:13 AM
I'm afraid this is the same thing that is going to happen when Romney takes over Tampa.