USA: Police State?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 6, 2007 03:18
VIEWED: 18210
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, October 1, 2007 6:50 PM

I just had to bring this Hero quote from another thread to this because it reveals Hero's basic outlook:

Quote:
Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.... I would suggest the truth is better off not known

www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30797

You're scary, dude. But at least we all got to see the snakes twisting around in your head.

---------------------
BTW- there are a few other rights in that Bill of Rights that Hero tries to downplay.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It seems so straightforward to me! Read them carefully and support them, because that's what's standing between you and prosecutors like Hero.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, October 1, 2007 7:25 PM

Meh, Hero doesn't scare me, in the grand essence of things, he is but a single grain of sand.

It's the vast desert he is part of that's fucking scary.

-F

KANEMAN

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:39 PM

Not if the RP revolution wins...till then we get this....

....

HERO

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It seems so straightforward to me! Read them carefully and support them, because that's what's standing between you and prosecutors like Hero.

I'm a State prosectutor. The Federal Bill of Rights alone offers you no protection against me. For that you must rely on the Ohio State Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That amendment includes the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation which bound states to the standards imposed by the Bill of Rights. (I note for the record that Ohio, like most states, has its own nearly identical Bill of Rights in it's Constitution. Some states vary on the wording or details, most often offering more specific rights. A good example is Ohio's Right to Bear Arms is much more broad then the Federal one.)

The Constitution does not stop at Amendment number 10. Try reading the whole thing sometime...Due Process is very interesting since essentially it is a mechanism by which the Federal Govt. can systematically deprive you of all of your rights, property, and life. I'd think the crazy-talkers would be much more afraid of that prospect.

Fortunately there is a crap-load of precedent establishing just what Due Process is. Essentially a hearing, an appeal, the right to cross examine, to have counsel present (and sometimes appointed), a neutral magistrate/judge, a gavel, a glass of water, a cushioned seat, a recording (or at least one available if requested), notice, the court's subpoena power (within reason), right to view the state's evidence, rules of procedure, funny whigs (ok, that one they got rid of in our country), etc. All of those things to some degree or another must be present to constitute Due Process.

Now the crazy-talkers think that its all crap cause its a fixed game. Perhaps it is. Or, you're mad cause you got convicted of something since they seem to share the sentiment with most shoplifters, speeders, child rapists, drunk drivers, and the fellow who showed up for his DOC Intox trial yesterday and blew over 4x the legal limit (0.344). They all feel a might put upon. Rightfully so, since most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
Fortunately there is a crap-load of precedent establishing just what Due Process is. Essentially a hearing, an appeal, the right to cross examine, to have counsel present (and sometimes appointed), a neutral magistrate/judge, a gavel, a glass of water, a cushioned seat, a recording (or at least one available if requested), notice, the court's subpoena power (within reason), right to view the state's evidence, rules of procedure, funny whigs (ok, that one they got rid of in our country), etc. All of those things to some degree or another must be present to constitute Due Process.

Tellingly, you keep forgetting a few things about due process. Let's see- glass of water? No. Seat cushion? Got that.

What's missing?

Oh, I KNOW....!

A JURY!! In your jurisdiction!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:37 PM

If we indeed lived in anything resembling a "police state", most of the posters here would have had their front doors busted down long ago, been taken away in handcuffs, and never heard from again.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:52 PM

Quote:
most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.

Hello,

I don't think you can lump 'most people' unhappy with the system into the same category as criminals who wish to 'drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways.'

It's disturbing to me that you categorize people who yearn for fairer trials as 'crazy talkers.'

It is also disturbing to me that a State Prosecuter believes that rape is a viable part of the prison experience, and that you put people in jail so that they can endure that experience.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.

Hello,

I don't think you can lump 'most people' unhappy with the system into the same category as criminals who wish to 'drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways.'

It's disturbing to me that you categorize people who yearn for fairer trials as 'crazy talkers.'

It is also disturbing to me that a State Prosecuter believes that rape is a viable part of the prison experience, and that you put people in jail so that they can endure that experience.

--Anthony

You want "fairer" trials....what do you think about replacing the current "jury of your peers" ( which is usually a bunch of working stiffs who don't wanna be there & know nothing of the law)...replace them with permanent professional juries?

I agree with you about the "rape" thing, although for child and sexual predators I think their own violent rape in jail would be a measure of justice for them....but your average everyday criminal should not have to endure being raped in prison.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:29 PM

How about better trial rules ? Or letting the jury ask questions ? There are ways to make trials 'fairer' without eliminating juries ... (strawman)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about better trial rules ? Or letting the jury ask questions ? There are ways to make trials 'fairer' without eliminating juries ... (strawman)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I don't know about that. Strangely enough a lot of the rules that seem to make little sense are actually there to help the accused.

I have only been in a jury once and that was in England so while I'm sure that the form of the trial was similar rules of evidence may be different. Anyway, we had an assault case where the victim was so badly beaten that he lay in a coma for 3 weeks. There was no doubt that our defendant was involved, he admited as much, but he claimed that one of the other people there had undertaken the majority of the beating and that he himself had a minor role. Because the second guy had already pled guilty we never heard from him and the details of that trial and the past history of our defendant was kept from us.

To our mind the case swung on the level of involvement of our defendant. The Victim couldn't remember anything about that entire week (brain damage) and the case came down to a game of "he said" between the guy on trial and the statements of the guy already convicted. We asked on occasion for evidence from the other case, specifically the second guy's clothes to try and assess his level of involvement by the amount of the victims blood on him. Because it was a different case these requests were denied. One juror was especially keen to give our defendant a pass on the basis that

1) The other guy already admitted he did it.
2) "He looks like such a nice young man"

In the end he was convicted of lesser charges.

It was later in sentencing that we learned he had a history of muggings and violence and had violated bail in this case by beating another man with a steel pipe during a drunken argument. Had these facts been known I doubt the juror that thought him a "nice young man" would have prevailed.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:06 PM

I personally hate the court proceedings in this country. Almost everything is set up to protect criminal defendants; and to me getting a unanimous verdict is almost frikkin' impossible. I am truly amazed that anyone is ever convicted in this country.

Tell me in what other field of human endeavour can you get 7 or 9 people to ever all agree on anything??

Browncoats here have been posting for years about their interpretations of things in Firefly, usually with vastly different opinions of things they've all seen over and over again...and still cannot agree on everything.

I'm not ready ...yet....to call for "guilty until proven innocent", but if you think about that, you might see how clean and neat that could work. All these high-powered defense attorneys have to do is raise "reasonable doubt" now to get their clients off...I say that's too damn easy...must be a bigger burden of proof to either prove innocence...or please...please eliminate this Unanimous bullshit...a simple majority of jurors saying guilty should be enough.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:06 PM

I've been on three cases of increasing severity - auto-theft/ possession; attempted murder; murder. (guilty/ not guilty/ guilty)

The prosecutor presents one scenario, the defense another, and you know there's information in between that you aren't hearing about.

In the second case, the missing piece of information was that the 'victim' did steal a man's handgun from his gym bag at a party. If we had known that he had (that was a different trial as well) I think we would have voted the other way. B/c it would have meant that the accused thought he was facing a person armed with a gun that had been stolen from him by the 'victim' and would have put in his mind that he was facing a deadly threat.

This kind of system - where you can't get all the relevant facts, makes for bad decisions.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:09 PM

On a side note, in my opinion, one piece of hard evidence is worth more than any amount of testimony. The murder conviction was based on a spatter of the victim's blood inside a wad of folded money.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:27 PM

Part of the problem is that often-times the case if presented as if one person is the "innocent vicitim" and the other person is the "evil perp". But a lot of times both people are guilty to some extent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Part of the problem is that often-times the case if presented as if one person is the "innocent vicitim" and the other person is the "evil perp". But a lot of times both people are guilty to some extent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I'm not sure that is important. If you provoke me to the point where I beat you to death then I'm still guilty of murder (which is what the jury has to decide) the best that can be said is that there might be mitigating circumstances. The law says you can't kill someone, not that you can't kill them if they don't deserve it.

Law is by it's nature an imperfect tool, to some degree Juries and judges try to make "off the shelf laws" into made to measure justice.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:12 PM

OOC, were you one of the people who supported tasering for impoliteness ? I forget.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The law says you can't kill someone, not that you can't kill them if they don't deserve it.

Laws are different in different places. In Florida we have the Stand Your Ground Law which basically recognizes your right to self-defense...you can shoot to kill someone who is threatening you...inside your home or outside on the streets.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OOC, were you one of the people who supported tasering for impoliteness ? I forget.

That's why threads are archived. Here, let me give you a hand.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30610

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:43 PM

Fletch2

"Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

"Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

And how exactly is this is relevant to the current topic?

Reality check. Laws are ultimately backed by the threat of force, because the treat of force is used to enforce them (bad sentence but you know what I mean.)

For any crime to be punished the perpetrator has to be arrested, held, transported and incarcerated all of which are activities that take place against his will in most cases. Should he resist at any stage force will be used to compel him.

So for any law you want enforced, even something as trivial as jay walking you are implicity condoning the potential use of force to implement it.

Now if you don't care if laws are implemented or not that's your business but if you do then you are agreeing to the use of force to implement them.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:39 PM

Well, (obviously) I was thinking about the taser incident. The 'rules' for the event weren't laws. They were just an agreement to make sure everyone had an equal chance to ask their question and keep the program timely. Since the program was over, the 'rules' no longer applied. So on the one hand you think that a person breaking no laws and posing no threat can 'provoke' the police to justifiable violence. But then you also think there is NO way a private person can 'provoke' another to justifiable violence. I see a double standard.

I also do have a few scenarios in mind where one could be provoked into throwing the first punch and it would be, in my mind, completely justifiable - though not by saying 'you mother swims after troop ships'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, (obviously) I was thinking about the taser incident. The 'rules' for the event weren't laws. They were just an agreement to make sure everyone had an equal chance to ask their question and keep the program timely. Since the program was over, the 'rules' no longer applied. So on the one hand you think that a person breaking no laws and posing no threat can 'provoke' the police to justifiable violence. But then you also think there is NO way a private person can 'provoke' another to justifiable violence. I see a double standard.

Well as always you

1) take remarks out of context and
2) decide my opinion for me and then claim I'm inconsistant.

I was asked in the Taser thread if I condoned the use of violence to remove the idiot. My answer was that like every citizen that believes in law and order I implicitly condone the use of violence to uphold the law. That was my answer then and I have clarified it above.

My comments on provocation came in answer to Sigs remark that criminal trials tend to paint the victim as innocent when in fact they could be a contributing factor to the crime. My point was that the courts only decide if the crime happened as a point of fact, contributing factors are taken into account in the penalty phase and not in establishing if the crime took place. "Because he deserved it" is not a defence to murder anywhere except here in Texas.

So no, provocation is not a defence to a crime. You are as usual equating two incompatable questions. There is no contradiction.

And before you cry too many tears about poor Mr Meyer, I think you will find that the organiser of an event is allowed to remove or exclude anyone from that event. The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:21 PM

Quote:
The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.

I think this was addressed at length. Both the facilty AND the event were "public". As such, the organizer did not have the authority to have anyone removed because he wasn't "breaking a law".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:29 PM

No inconsistencies.

Here's one example where I think one could be accused of 'assault' but that it would be based on provocation - a person (non-violently) backs you into a corner all the while yelling at you. You, fearing for your health, decide that catching said person off-guard might be your best way out, so out of the blue you throw a punch in your attempt to get away. Now, as the first person to make physical contact, you're technically liable for assault. OTOH the 'victim' wasn't innocent. So I can see how JohnQ citizen could be 'provoked' into violence.

When it comes to the taser incident, there was no actual 'provocation' - just a bit of theatricality carried on for a few seconds too long. And yet you seem to think that that was enough to justify violence.

BTW the events are "always free and open to the public", and that particular event was held on a public campus - ie - a public area. (Not a Sears store, as you so tellingly mischaracterized). I hope you're capable of drawing the correct conclusions about trespassing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:40 PM

Not at all. A Sears store is "free and open to the public" when I walk in during normal store hours. Later "after the event is over" ie the store is closed I am asked to leave and refuse. Just because I had permission to be there during the day does not mean that I have permission for all time. Sears revoked my permision when they asked me to leave, when I refused to go I was liable for trespass.

Likewise if Meyer pulled out a bedroll and started to sack out for the night are you really saying that nobody had a right to remove him because he was allowed to be there earlier in the day.

You can't have it both ways.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No inconsistencies.

Here's one example where I think one could be accused of 'assault' but that it would be based on provocation - a person (non-violently) backs you into a corner all the while yelling at you. You, fearing for your health, decide that catching said person off-guard might be your best way out, so out of the blue you throw a punch in your attempt to get away. Now, as the first person to make physical contact, you're technically liable for assault. OTOH the 'victim' wasn't innocent. So I can see how JohnQ citizen could be 'provoked' into violence.

JohnQ still resorted to thowing the first punch, what he thought MIGHT happen are mitigating factors at trial but he still technically commited assault.

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:44 PM

But it was under the perception of threat.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:46 PM

A Sears store is "free and open to the public" -- but it's private property. That's the difference. (I can't believe I had to explain that.)

"if Meyer pulled out a bedroll and started to sack out for the night are you really saying that nobody had a right to remove him"
It's a legal problem. Some cities try to keep people from living in the parks (which also close at night) by making them inhospitable - not having benches to sit on for example. (They feel that if you don't give homeless people a place to roost, then they won't.) But as long as the homeless are not impeding anyone, blocking entries, aggressively panhandling, or posing a threat, there's not too much that can be done -legally. Being out on the street or in the park is their right. And if they took to camping on campus (as I did once when I was homeless for a few weeks) I don't know if legally, removing them could be made to stick.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:55 PM

Quote:
Well as always you 1) take remarks out of context and ...

People are for the most part "context sensitive". TOO "context sensitive". There were several interesting papers on how context can lead people to completely different conclusions when confronting basically the same question. That is why "assault and battery" in a civilian context suddenly looks very different when the aggressor is wearing blue.

When considering a question or a situation it helps to approach it from several different directions. Would it look the same if the speaker were saying something I disagreed with? If the cop was a civilian? If they had simply shoved Meyers out? At what point WOULD I say that using a taser is justified?

I hear a lot of complaints about "taking things out of context" but it really is a useful tool for analyzing a question w/o prejudice (or at least revealing them) and one that the right wing doesn't use nearly often enough IMHO.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:08 AM

Well he's inside a building and someone owns that building even if it is a university campus. Are you really saying that I can squat in any university building and they never have the right to throw me out?

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.
I think this was addressed at length. Both the facilty AND the event were "public". As such, the organizer did not have the authority to have anyone removed because he wasn't "breaking a law".

Actually, it was long discussed, and at the end Rue expressed an opinion that the organizer had no right to ask him to be removed, and I expressed an opinion that they did. No case law was ever presented to substantiate either side (I did some looking and decided I didn't even know how to look for it).

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:28 AM

The pretend students who never were admitted got thrown out, but that was for using the food service and dorm rooms without paying.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well he's inside a building and someone owns that building even if it is a university campus. Are you really saying that I can squat in any university building and they never have the right to throw me out?

Keeping in mind that an important part of the point is, -public- university.

Specifically, if there is an -organized event-, can the group which has the permission to have the organized event at a public university able to request someone to be ejected if the event has no admission charge? (Details may be important.)

And if anyone knows the law; does the circumstance change if admission is charged or otherwise restricted? Or if the group has 'paid' to rent the space as opposed to if it is merely space made available to the group at no cost? These last questions are just to satisfy my curiosity. Though I would also be curious as to the answer of Fletch's question above.

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The pretend students who never were admitted got thrown out, but that was for using the food service and dorm rooms without paying.

Food service is problematic; that is really 'private' food having been sold. The dorm rooms is a different matter; it's still a public university, right?

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:33 AM

When one attends a public university one has the option of living in a dorm or not. If you choose to live in a dorm you pay for the living space. It's an extra service you're paying for. If you live in that living space without paying the fee then you're stealing that service from the state.

As far as I know living in a public space in a public university building has never been tested.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:52 AM

How could a public university ever close off any venue? If Rue is right they could never exclude anyone for any reason. If I want to be an asshole at the gay and lesbian society I just occupy their meeting space and shout them down after all nobody could evict me (and if they did Rue would rush to my defence.)

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:55 AM

When campus protestors took over buildings in the 70's they removed them by force - but then it was a question of what to charge them with. In the one instance I know of they were charged with interfering with government operations.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When one attends a public university one has the option of living in a dorm or not. If you choose to live in a dorm you pay for the living space. It's an extra service you're paying for. If you live in that living space without paying the fee then you're stealing that service from the state.

So, do you agree you have established that if you pay money for a space at a public university, you have the right to use that space (in this case, a dorm room) to the exclusion of anyone else (except your roommate of course)?

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:57 AM

I'm not 100% sure if one would consider it more like a rental or a service, though my recollection is that it's considered a service. I think that makes a difference in how it's legally interpreted.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:01 AM

Hello,

What is a 'Public University?'

I was under the impression that you either had to pay money to attend a college or university, or that a scholarship paid your way.

I was also under the impression that some group earned income from Colleges and Universities - that the money spent to attend not only went to sustain the University but also to earn a profit for somebody.

I was further under the impression that Colleges and Universities might be subsidized by the state or federal government in some ways. However, unlike my neighborhood Elementary, Middle, or High School, I was under the impression that Colleges and Universities were private businesses of some kind. More akin to a Private School than a Public School.

I was finally under the impression that my local Elementary school, a Public school, occasionally holds public activities. These include PTA meetings and the like. But that if I attended one of these meetings and created a disturbance or made a nuisance of myself, that I may be asked to leave. I've been under the impression that the police officers who patrol these Public Schools have the authority to make me leave, up to and including the use of force if I resist.

Am I mistaken about the nature of Colleges, Universities, and Public schools?

Thanks,

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When campus protestors took over buildings in the 70's they removed them by force - but then it was a question of what to charge them with. In the one instance I know of they were charged with interfering with government operations.

Case closed, Meyer was interfering with government operations.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:09 AM

BDN_And hence the concept of a "police state".

Anthony- Public universities are indeed public. Tuition helps defray- but does not cover the cost- of the education/ instruction that you receive there. You are therefore not paying for your "presence" on campus, if that's what you're driving at.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:23 AM

Public universities (like UCLA) are funded by the state, as opposed to private universities which are privately owned (like USC). Public universities don't make money for anyone - student tuition and fees don’t cover the cost of maintaining them, paying salaries to professors, administrators, TAs, janitors etc.

Public universities and colleges aren't quite akin to lower-level schools. There the school system is in effect the guardian of minor children. Security during and after hours is much tighter to maintain the safety (and reduce the liability) of the school and grounds. (For example, you don't want a tubercular person spitting all over the halls.)

Public colleges and universities are considered community resources and places for independent thinking and action. Not only do they have a different legal role regarding their students, they have a different ethic for their being.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:26 AM

"Case closed, Meyer was interfering with government operations."

Not really. The 'interference' came from secretaries not being able to access their offices and do their normal jobs. No jobs were being interefered with in Florida. And (I can't believe I have to say this again ...) the function WAS OVER. DONE. FINI. Can you understand that simple concept ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:31 AM

Hello,

I just found this online:

Quote:

"In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is partly as a result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. Many U.S. public universities began as teacher training institutions and eventually were expanded into comprehensive universities. Examples include Missouri State University, formerly Southwest Missouri State Teachers College; Sam Houston State University, formerly Sam Houston State Teachers College; State University of New York at Cortland, formerly Cortland State Teachers College; and the University of North Alabama, formerly Florence State Teachers College.

States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point.

Historically, most of the prestigious universities in the United States have been private. Some public universities are also highly prestigious and increasingly selective; Richard Moll designated such prestigious public universities Public Ivies. State support of public universities has been declining, forcing many public universities to seek private support. Some professional graduate programs in law, business, and medicine rely almost solely on private funding."

Which supports what you say about public universities. They do indeed appear to be state institutions.

Which puts them into the same category as my local Public Elementary School, I think. Except that they are more expensive.

So we only need to determine my rights at a Public Elementary School, and apply them to the University.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:33 AM

Public universities and colleges aren't quite akin to lower-level schools. There the school system is in effect the guardian of minor children. Security during and after hours is much tighter to maintain the safety (and reduce the liability) of the school and grounds. (For example, you don't want a tubercular person spitting all over the halls. Or child molesters hiding out at night in the library.)

Public colleges and universities are considered community resources and places for independent thinking and action. Not only do they have a different legal role regarding their students, they have a different ethic for their being.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:38 AM

"If I want to be an asshole at the gay and lesbian society I just occupy their meeting space and shout them down after all nobody could evict me ..."

But then you'd be interfering with their meeting. A simple concept I had to explain to BDN appears to have escaped you as well - the Florida meeting WAS OVER. Therefore, Meyer was interfering with NOTHING.

***************************************************************
Isn't it scary when you find yourself in BDN's company ?

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:02 AM

Why would that matter? It doesnt change the nature of the meeting space? You deciding it makes a difference doesnt make it different, if the school cant evict someone at the end of a meeting why would they have the right to evict them during a meeting? There being a meeting does not effect their property rights.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:07 AM

Interfering with a function is an issue.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:17 AM

I don't believe the function was over; it was nearing conclusion. I do not believe Kerry had completed his final statement. I'm also not sure if the event would be deemed to be over until the organizer's allotted time had expired. My guess is they had an additional 30 minutes or so of exclusive use of the room; at least, when I organized club meetings at college, I always did that. Luckily, I never had to have anyone disruptive removed; the worst we ever had to do was glare at someone and tell them they were out of order.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:21 AM

The police report said that the Q&A session was announced to be over. There was an implication (though not explicit) that that was the last thing on the schedule.

Senator Kerry was answering questions during the "question and answer stage" of his
presentation when the audience was told there would only be one question left to be answered.
After the question was answered, Senator Kerry stated the question and answer was over and
thanked the audience for asking their questions. The approximate number of people in line
asking questions was about 20, and Senator Kerry answered about 8 questions. All of the
people standing in line started to dissipate and either sat back down or started to leave.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:52 AM

Gotcha. If there was not to be a closing statement (I looked on the Accent site a day or two after the event, and there was no information about the event, so no access to a planned agenda), then the function was basically over. That would reduce the standing of 'interrupting a function'; then it gets to be a question of if the organizer still had any expectation of having use of the room. Getting pretty weak in my opinion; but still not positive what the letter of the law permits.

I will add, while I had previously stated it was unwise, for Accent to request Mr. Meyers's removal (whether entitled to or not), it was extra ordinarily -stupid- of Accent to request the removal. They should have just let him rant, and Kerry would eventually have to acknowledge his schedule demanded him to be elsewhere and just leave the boy rant.

If anyone catches something that makes it clear the Q & A was planned to be the end of the program, that would be helpful.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:04 AM

Well from the pictures and video everyone was still seated. The Q&A was effectively at an end because the idiot didn't hand back the mic but at the very least I'm thinking there would be a closing statement thanking Kerry for coming and asking for applause. Just because the Q&A was over does not make the event over.

Finally nobody has explained to me how this in any way effects the college's right to evict a troublemaker? Or proved to me that a publically owned college hosting a public event does not have the right to police it's own premises?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A simple concept I had to explain to BDN appears to have escaped you as well - the Florida meeting WAS OVER. Therefore, Meyer was interfering with NOTHING.

If the meeting was over than Senator Kerry probably had some other government business that Meyer was interfering with the completion of.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BDN_And hence the concept of a "police state".

Signy,
There has to be some middle ground between the 'police state' and total anarchy. Interesting short story from my past seems relevant.
http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml

LEADB

Thursday, October 4, 2007 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well from the pictures and video everyone was still seated.

After reading Rue's assertion that the event was over based on the police report, I did a quick scan of the videos because my memory was the same as yours. Unfortunately, in all the videos I could find, Mr. Meyers was already talking to Kerry; and it is possible folks had seated themselves back down because Kerry was obviously paying attention to the student; and in fact at some point Kerry indicates he will answer the student's question. So, is this then a 'chat after the event'? An extension of the event? And will effect the legal status if so? I don't know.

Quote:

The Q&A was effectively at an end because the idiot didn't hand back the mic but at the very least I'm thinking there would be a closing statement thanking Kerry for coming and asking for applause. Just because the Q&A was over does not make the event over.

Finally nobody has explained to me how this in any way effects the college's right to evict a troublemaker? Or proved to me that a publically owned college hosting a public event does not have the right to police it's own premises?

Let's assume under normal circumstances that it is permissible for him to walk onto a public university campus, particular case in point to attend, an event billed as 'open to the public'; thus clearly Mr. Meyer's initial attendance was 'ok'.
Further, it's clear that going into a building, and certainly parts of buildings, is clearly restricted at times, even if the building is public; but again, the building was part of the event, as was the room, therefore Mr. Meyer was clearly all right to be in the room; the room would be held open until at least the end of Accent's appointed time (Accent was the event organizer); and thus again he can be there until at least then.
Now, if the person who had been requesting the removal had been a University official, you might have a point; but it wasn't, it was someone from Accent. Ordinarily, someone from Accent would have no more authority to ask someone to be removed from a public University setting than you or I; however, as the event organizer and 'renter' of the room (or in any case, the designated room user if no one money changed hands) might have the right to request the removal on the basis they are running a function.
Because Accent is the organizer of the event/function, any special authority they would have would expire at the end of the function. But what if they 'had the room' for an extra half hour past the end of the time when Kerry actually stopped speaking (given time so folks might chat amongst themselves for a bit on the topics of the day before they would be directed to leave for the next event scheduled for the room... if there was one, but that's a point to consider), do they still have the right to request someone to be removed?
At the moment, I mostly have questions, and while I have an opinion, I lack certainty. My opinion is Accent was probably still within their rights to request him to be removed until their appointed time expired (though... it doesn't affect the 'stupid' factor IMHO if the core of the event really had ended). Rue feels otherwise, and in fact might be right. I see a lot of grey on this.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:02 PM

I've attended a lot of speaking events over the years. I have yet to see one where those hosting the event didn't thank the speaker at the end. Had I been attending I know I would have remained seated until that point as a sign of respect for the speaker, after all leaving during such an event is commonly seen as a showing that you disagree with the speaker.

So no matter what Rue may think (and it's typical of her to nit pick this down to seconds) the audience probably thought the thing was still running.

The people that tackled Meyer were campus security and not Accent's private cops. Consequently their authority to ask Meyer to leave was not limited by Accent's use of the space. I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me where it says that a public university can not police it's own buildings and nobody has answered, instead we keep getting distracted about was this before during or after. That is irrelevant if the college through it's security can remove someone from it's premises at any time.

Finally, I would argue that the college and Accent are responsable for Kerry's safety and in fact the safety of anyone in that room until the room is empty irrespective of the time. Consequently it is legal for the campus cops to secure the room prior to Kerry leaving.

Meyer might be a looney but the Democrats have a history of lone whackjobs shooting their politicians. If we had woken the next day to news that Kerry had been shot Bobby Kenedy style by some whacko with a handgun and you and I argued that the college had no right to evict the obvious troublemaker before he started shooting, I'm sure Rue would be on the other side of this question.

Let's put this in context. Meyer was being a disruptive jerk, he was asked to leave but didn't they attempted to remove him and he resisted and eventually they tazed him. This is an A-B-C-D style progression where Rue has decided to ignore B and C and declare that the cops Tazed him for being a jerk. They didn't they tazed him when he resisted arrest and had already escallated events himself.

When that doesn't really persuade anyone she attempts to float the idea that the college has no right to police it's own buildings. When it is shown that that can't be true she decides (without evidence!) that the moment the last question is asked Accent looses all rights to evict the guy. We are now down to a point where we are arguing over minutes to prove/disprove an idea that is plain bogus. Of course the college can evict him because at the very least they are responsable for the safety of people on their campus.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:14 PM

I'm gonna drag this discussion back to "police state".

The various examples of police misconduct (beating and tasering without cause etc.) have caused me to redefine "police state". IMHO corrupt, out- of-control police departments do not create a "police state". I would reserve my definition of "police state" to interference with on-line discussions, telephone conversations, meetings, voting, demonstrations, media coverage, etc. by various "security" agencies including the local police.

I point to several examples: violent response to the peaceful Miami demonstration, violent response to a peaceful LA demonstration, and the enforcement of "free speech zones"- as "police state" acts. One of the insidious things about police states is that they create ad hoc "rules" that have no basis in the Constitution, which are simply covered by saying there is a "security" issue.

IMHO the action against Meyer was a police-state action. The function of the event was to gather Kerrys' views including a Q&A period. Meyer asked his questions. Kerry was willing to answer. It was the security people - the the behest of the organizer- who interfered with the purpose of the event.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:17 PM

Quote:
I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me where it says that a public university can not police it's own buildings and nobody has answered, instead we keep getting distracted about was this before during or after. That is irrelevant if the college through it's security can remove someone from it's premises at any time.

They have the physical capability to remove anyone at any time. But if they remove the wrong person, for the wrong reason, or with excessive force they should rightly catch a ration of shit.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

IMHO the action against Meyer was a police-state action. The function of the event was to gather Kerrys' views including a Q&A period. Meyer asked his questions. Kerry was willing to answer. It was the security people - the the behest of the organizer- who interfered with the purpose of the event.

But Siggy you are wrong, the great Goddess, the infallable all knowing Rue has decreed in her magnificence that the event was over. How could they interfere with an event that was over?

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me where it says that a public university can not police it's own buildings and nobody has answered, instead we keep getting distracted about was this before during or after. That is irrelevant if the college through it's security can remove someone from it's premises at any time.
They have the physical capability to remove anyone at any time. But if they remove the wrong person, for the wrong reason, or with excessive force they should rightly catch a ration of shit.

Excellent then we are in agreement. In which case it's a judgement call.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:21 PM

Quote:
But Siggy you are wrong, the great Goddess, the infallable all knowing Rue has decreed in her magnificence that the event was over. How could they interfere with an event that was over?

Indeed. So if the event WAS over, why did they remove Meyer?

Either way, they fucked up.

Quote:
Excellent then we are in agreement. In which case it's a judgement call.

And we are judging their call, which is our right and duty.

IMHO campus security have the right to remove people for several reasons:

They pose a threat. We once had a whack-job student - "Crazy Charlie"- who was a severe annoyance. He would tend to bird-dog people with the most inconsequential questions: " Say, ask me for the square root of any number..." and obsessively follow anyone who showed the merest politeness. Nonetheless, he was allowed to continue classes despite being a major pain in the ass and a class disruption. It wasn't until he grabbed the nearest bottle of chemicals in our lab and threatened a TA that he was banned from campus. (Now that I think about it, Charlie was prolly a high-functioning autistic. In retrospect I feel sorry for him.)

They access unpaid services Cafeteria, dorm, and laboratory privileges are no-brainers. Libraries SHOULD be open to the public, altho people without student ID prolly can't check out books. What about "auditing" a class? (Sitting in on lectures) IMHO people should be allowed to audit classes provided there are enough seats. "Auditing" a class doesn't get your credit, now does it allow you to take tests or labs or submit papers.

They destroy property. I think that's pretty straightforward. Stealing, defacing, breaking, making unfit for use... I can't think of any gray areas.

There is a gray area created by people "roosting" on-campus: living in libraries, gyms, student unions etc. I have a strange solution to that problem but I'm not gonna post it here just yet.

"Interfering with university employees" or any other number of ad hoc "rules" are too open to interpretation and too liable to be abused.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But Siggy you are wrong, the great Goddess, the infallable all knowing Rue has decreed in her magnificence that the event was over. How could they interfere with an event that was over?
Indeed. So if the event WAS over, why did they remove Meyer?

Either way, they fucked up.

Just pointing out that both you and I see the event as still being on (unlike someone we know.)

As to the other question. There were no rules that said "taze anyone being a jerk" which is what you suggest. He was asked to leave because he was being a jerk and since we've established that campus security can evict anyone for any reason the only question becomes is "being a jerk" a good enough reason. I'm thinking you'll say no, I would argue otherwise. Meyer has been asked to sit down and has refused, he's continued to wave his arms around even when the mic has been cut. We have no idea what he will do if Kerry doesnt answer his questions the way he wants or if Kerry tries to leave.

Since both the organisers and the college are responsable for Kerry's safety and they can't know in advance that Meyer is harmless, then of course they will try and remove him. Like I said if the headlines the next day were that this wacko assaulted Kerry or worse, I'm sure you'd be the first to wonder why campus security didn't act sooner.

In fact had Meyer killed Kerry I'm sure we['d be in the middle of a conspiracy thread where the lack of campus security was seen as "evidence" this was a "hit ordered by the man."

Edited to add:

While events are happening people respond in real time with the limited information they have available. Very often they are acting blind, they have no idea what the other party is going to do and have no idea what will happen next.

One of the patterns to the posts you and Rue pitch here is that you "Monday Morning Quarterback" with far more information and 20/20 hindsight than the folks had at the time.

Use empathy. You are a security guy at a speaking event. You've probably been told that the safety of the speaker is your primary reason for being there (after all can you think of a reason to have cops at an event like that other than the security of the speaker?) Now you have a wacko harrassing the guy you are nominally told to protect, you have no idea AT THE TIME who this guy is what his agenda is etc. You are asked to remove him and he doesnt go... the rest is escallation.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:01 PM

Quote:
Just pointing out that both you and I see the event as still being on (unlike someone we know.)

I haven't decided one way or another. Kerry was still taking questions, apparently. But if you look in the background of the CNN tape, people are leaving. I was just point out that either way the organizer fucked up, and bid the security people to do likewise.

Quote:
Since both the organisers and the college are responsable for Kerry's safety

Oh, THAT old piece of gosse again! Had Meyer moved towards Kerry in a threatening manner, I would have said "hell yeah, get out the tasers" but you cannot point to a single instance of a threat. Your argument is all about what he MIGHT HAVE done. I smell a lot of IF coming offa that plan. But since he held his hands up, or out from his sides, and hung onto his book and papers with one hand it was clear he was aiming to show that he was NOT a threat. In fact, security had to reach up to bring his arms down to his sides. How much LESS threatening can you get? If he had dropped his book and his hands, I would have said you had more of an argument but... nah, this "threat" thing doesn't doesn't fly.

And if Security can't tell the difference between an annoying person and a threat, they don't belong in that job.

No, the real objection to Meyer was the content of his preamble and questions, not that he posed any sort of threat to Kerry. The organizers didn't want Kerry embarrassed, that's why they cut the mic and asked for Meyer to be ejected. (BTW Has it been established that they actually asked Meyer to leave?) And instead, they created an even bigger kerffufle. (Nice going!

)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:16 PM

That's my point. IN YOUR JUDGEMENT looking at the evidence with 20/20 hindsight you don't think it's justified based on what eventually happened. But there at the time with the future unknown the security people have to make a judgement call .

The judgement wasn't "let's fry the asshole" it was "let's ask this gentleman to leave" which they tried.

I'm getting the impression you spend too much time in that lab. In the real world things are not so tightly controlled and predictable. Proof this isn't a police state is that Meyer did not "fall repeatedly while resisting arrest" nor did he end up in Gitmo. So in effect this is mostly hyperboly on your part.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:26 PM

As the police report said a few times - time was pressing. How many questions Kerry answered depended on the time. When time ran out the Q&A ended. For the record, the news reports said that Kerry answered the questions then left. The event was indeed over.

I'm making a point of this b/c it was obviously staged with a lot of thought put into making the student NOT LEGALLY LIABLE. He waited till it was declared over, held a book in one hand, made no threatening statements, held his hands out to the side and in every way made it blatantly obvious he was not interfering and posed no threat. He did everything he needed to do to legally - and publicly - have his say.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:
That's my point. IN YOUR JUDGEMENT looking at the evidence with 20/20 hindsight you don't think it's justified based on what eventually happened. But there at the time with the future unknown the security people have to make a judgement call.

We pay them to make judgment calls in the line of duty, and we get to second-guess them afterwards. That's how security agencies are kept in control by civilians, instead of running amuck and doing whatever they please. The answer to poor judgment by cops is NOT "no judgment" by others, it goes into the bag of "experience" and "training" and (if necessary) "firing" and "prosecution".

The cop who tasered the guy SHOULD get the very clear message that IN THIS CASE he fucked up. He, and all of them, should be sat down with the videotapes and the event should be deconstructed for them. The cops ejected Meyer NOT because he was a threat but because they were following orders (How many times have we heard that?) So among other things cops should know which orders are outside of the purview of the person giving the order. I personally think the organizer is hanging the security people out to dry. (Except Officer Taser, who deserves to to have a black mark on his record.)

Everyone makes mistakes, and "cop-mistakes" (like doctor-mistakes) are bound to be consequential. Given that, I think cops should have a little more leeway than civilians. OTOH, if there is a cop who keeps making the SAME "mistake" over and over again s/he should be prosecuted.

Quote:
The judgement wasn't "let's fry the asshole" it was "let's ask this gentleman to leave" which they tried.

Has it been established that they asked him to leave first?

Quote:
I'm getting the impression you spend too much time in that lab. In the real world things are not so tightly controlled and predictable. Proof this isn't a police state is that Meyer did not "fall repeatedly while resisting arrest" nor did he end up in Gitmo. So in effect this is mostly hyperboly on your part.

It's not necessary to apply the maximum penalty to all dissenters in order to have a chilling effect in everyone.

I spend a lot of time in the Lab, but I used to live in several dangerous neighborhoods and I've been threatened up close and personal more than once. (I think everyone from the USA could prolly say the same.) I understand that judgment is often made on-the-fly, and I understand that people who are keyed up on adrenaline might make poor decisions. That being said, that IS the job of a cop and I repeat: If they can't handle those situations they don't belong in the force.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:36 PM

reposted

I'm making a point of this b/c it was obviously staged with a lot of thought put into making the student NOT LEGALLY LIABLE. He waited till it was declared over, held a book in one hand, made no threatening statements, held his hands out to the side and in every way made it blatantly obvious he was not interfering and posed no threat. He did everything he needed to do to legally - and publicly - have his say.

added - and yes, I agree w/ SignyM. As I stated much earlier, the cops are expected to exercise their judgement in when they can legally act. In this case, they were trying to please an 'authority' rather than doing their jobs.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:55 PM

Which brings me back to "Who is giving the orders?" I see a lot of problems with Secret Service (for example) or private parties ordering local police or campus security. The reason being that the police/ security face penalties and oversight that the Secret Service or the private party don't face. It's the "responsibility/ authority" problem, and I personally think that local police (and campus security) are far too eager to give up their authority to anyone who gives them orders.

ETA- And as such they become willing participants in creating a "police state".
---------------------------------
I was just following orders."

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 4, 2007 6:43 PM

I think they can legally act. Despite your protestations you have yet to show that the college doesnt have the right to police it's premises. That being the case they can legally exclude him for any reason.

Until you prove it was ILLEGAL for them to remove him and preferably show them going to jail for that illegal act, the only thing you can say is that their judgement was impared when they chose to use their legal right to evict him over such a trivial matter.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 6:58 PM

Quote:
I think they can legally act. Despite your protestations you have yet to show that the college doesnt have the right to police it's premises. That being the case they can legally exclude him for any reason.

There are two issues:

(1) Does campus security have the legal right to remove anyone for any reason?
Your assumption is that they do. I don't know "the law" on this, but if were that were the case then most of the hearings and investigations that have taken place would not even be a question. My guess is that the "right" to remove people is limited and subject to various restrictions which are subject to review. Since you're the one making the assumption, I think you should come up with something to back it up. Maybe Hero will weigh in.

2) Did they use excessive force?
IMHO, they did.

ETA: OOC I googled "state university" + security + "policies and procedures" and went to the first site which was Montana State University's P&P. I searched their P&P for "curfew", "ejection" and "removal" and got no hits relevant to security. (But a lot about sign and window A/C removal) I DID come up with this, under "arrest"

Quote:
510.00 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations
Most campus demonstrations such as marches, meetings, picketing and rallies will be peaceful and non-obstructive. A student demonstration should not be disrupted unless one or more of the following conditions exists as a result of the demonstration:

1. INTERFERENCE with the normal operations of the University.
2. PREVENTION of access to office, buildings or other University facilities.
3. THREAT of physical harm to persons or damage to University facilities.

. Also

Quote:
570.00 Violent or Criminal Behavior

in which they focus on threat to person or property. Nowhere did I see implied that campus security could remove anyone for any reason.

------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Thursday, October 4, 2007 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
(1) Does campus security have the legal right to remove anyone for any reason?
Your assumption is that they do. I don't know "the law" on this, but if were that were the case then most of the hearings and investigations that have taken place would not even be a question. My guess is that the "right" to remove people is limited and subject to various restrictions which are subject to review. Since you're the one making the assumption, I think you should come up with something to back it up. Maybe Hero will weigh in.

It depends on the type of University, public or private, and the State that its in. The real question is what kind of police are they? Are they recognized law enforcement with power, privilages, and immunities that come from being duly sworn...or are they more like security guards. And if its a private university they can exclude anyone for any reason...same as a private business (noting for the record that any reason has some Constitutional limits like race).

Quote:

2) Did they use excessive force? IMHO, they did.

They asked him to leave, he didn't, they then sought to compel him, he resisted, at that point his continued disturbance, refusal to comply, and outright resistance allows a use of force. Pepper spray would have affected others in the area and possibly triggered a panic. The taser was designed as a more controlled and effective response and deterrant.

I say tase the bastard again.

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 7:22 PM

Hero- Has it been established that they asked him to leave? Last I heard, it was still an open question. Also in Montana, campus security is "duly sworn". I assume the officers in FLA were "duly sworn" because they arrested Meyer, they didn't simply "remove" him. Based on my limited experience with the SUNY system, the CA regents system, the Montana website and the FLA incident my guess is that most (if not all) public university campus security are bona fide police officers.

Please see my previous post for Montana official campus P&P on demonstrations which says, in part

Quote:
510.00 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations
Most campus demonstrations such as marches, meetings, picketing and rallies will be peaceful and non-obstructive. A student demonstration should not be disrupted unless one or more of the following conditions exists as a result of the demonstration...

Feel free to look up other public university P&P to add to the discussion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 8:05 PM

http://www.police.ufl.edu/patrol/patrol.asp
You have now arrived at the University of Florida Police Department's Patrol Division Web Site. The Patrol Division is the largest division within the police department.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered/

The Florida Division of Law Enforcement will investigate Monday's arrest

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/
General Information About FDLE
The Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission (CJSTC), established under FS 943, is an independent policy making body that ensures that Florida’s citizens are served by a qualified, well trained, competent, and ethical law enforcement community.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 4, 2007 8:16 PM

So stick THAT up your *sses, you boot-licking nazis!

Eh, just kidding.

The point is, I have a right to be a jackass as long as I'm not threatening you. I looked up several Florida campus P&P relating to demonstrations, and every single one said that as long as they were peaceful and didn't disrupt normal campus function they should not be interfered with. I couldn't find this particular university's P&P on demonstrations, but they would be way out of line of they had any other policy.

So for the record: Campus police do NOT have the right to remove anyone for any reason. And if you try to make it so, you WOULD be in favor of police-state activity since that interpretation would allow removing students for voicing any sort of dissent whatsoever. And I assume that since you are NOT in favor of police states (right?) you would not be in favor of that particular assumption, nor would you promote or advocate anyone being tasered in violation of his free speech rights.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 4, 2007 9:44 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html

soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

***************************************************************
We don't torture or spy, this is a nation of law ... riiiiight.

LEADB

Friday, October 5, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think they can legally act. Despite your protestations you have yet to show that the college doesnt have the right to police it's premises. That being the case they can legally exclude him for any reason.

Until you prove it was ILLEGAL for them to remove him and preferably show them going to jail for that illegal act, the only thing you can say is that their judgement was impared when they chose to use their legal right to evict him over such a trivial matter.

Here's the problem I have with the direction you seem to be going; while I'm willing to grant Accent 'may' have had the right to ask for Mr. Meyers to be removed, I disagree that that the police, without request, had the legal right to remove him.
They can ask him to leave; sure. He can tell them to take a long walk off a short pier.
Until they laid hands on him, he was merely loud and obnoxious; I do not believe, based on his behavior, they had any right to physically remove him; unless (possibly) they were asked to by someone with a legal right to remove him.
While I cannot -prove- that Accent asked for Mr. Meyer to be removed, it is my understanding this was the case. It is not clear to me if they had a 'right' to, but I believe they did.
I will observe the following:
The officers did not immediately remove him when he ran past his first question; if the police felt he was a risk, they should have grabbed him immediately. They very clearly -wait until Mr. Meyers finishes his question-; then they grab him. Why? Didn't want to be rude? What they -should- have done was put themselves between Mr. Meyers and the stage. As long as the only 'offense' Mr. Meyers makes is with his mouth (keep in mind this was a political discussion) I don't think they should remove him. It is not illegal to mouth off to a senator. Assuming an event moderator did not ask for him to be removed, if you feel they were justified in touching him, please explain why. What threat did he pose?

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:12 AM

The direction that Fletch is heading is in:

Quote:
I think they {campus security} can legally act. Despite your protestations you have yet to show that the college doesnt have the right to police it's premises. That being the case they can legally exclude him for any reason.

So campus police... which are regular police on-campus- have the right to remove anyone, any time, for any reason from public property. In other words "policing" doesn't mean "enforcing the law", it means being able to remove (or arrest?) anyone for any reason. Or no reason at all. It's a short hop, skip, jump applying that reasoning specifically to political suppression. And that of course is the creation of a police state. If it were ME making that statement, I would be surprised to find such a strong fascist streak in myself.

This may not be what Fletch means. If not, I'd sure like to hear what limits HE thinks should be placed on "policing".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 12:50 PM

I wanted to add that I know that campus security on private universities is often a private security firm. At USC, which is a private university (and a campus of rich, clueless kids smack in the middle between a black gang area on its southern edge and a hispanic gang area on it's northern edge) they have private security, which means that anyone they detain they have to turn over to police for arrest.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
They can ask him to leave; sure. He can tell them to take a long walk off a short pier.
Until they laid hands on him, he was merely loud and obnoxious; I do not believe, based on his behavior, they had any right to physically remove him; unless (possibly) they were asked to by someone with a legal right to remove him.

He had no right to disrupt the speech. He refused to relinquish the microphone. Officers asked him to leave, he refused and resisted and was arrested.

We've got a local crazy-guy (kinda like PN only old and senile). When the Mayor has an election rally he shows up with a loudspeaker and starts speaking. He gets arrested for disorderly conduct...every time. Not because he's interrupting the Mayor...who has a permit...but because he's causing alarm and refusing a lawful order to stop.

H

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:40 PM

Quote:
He had no right to disrupt the speech.

Speech? Kerry wasn't making a speech. There are only two possible interpretations of what was going on: Either you believe the police reports which said the event was over in which case Meyer interrupted nothing, or you believe that Kerry was going to answer Meyer's questions in which case Kerry had informally extended the Q&A and the police themselves interrupted the function. (Kerry could just have said "No more questions. Thank you") Meyer was not interrupting anything. He was not a threat. His was a non-disruptive demonstration which is permitted by P&P. I find it shocking that people identify with "authority" so much that they're willing to eliminate freedom of speech in order to assert it.

Quote:
Officers asked him to leave

Did they? If they did I must have missed that part in the video. If you have evidence please bring in here, otherwise stop repeating baseless assertions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I find it shocking that people identify with "authority" so much that they're willing to eliminate freedom of speech in order to assert it.

So in your world people should be able to do whatever they want unless they harm others. Well if you allow people to do whatever they want others will be harmed, it's human nature.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Officers asked him to leave
Did they? If they did I must have missed that part in the video. If you have evidence please bring in here, otherwise stop repeating baseless assertions.

If officers had tried to physically remove Meyer before asking, then that fact will come up either at the inquiry or in Meyers suit which I'm sure is forthcoming based on interpretations of the incident like yours. Besides, isn't your assertion that Meyer was not asked to leave first baseless as well?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The direction that Fletch is heading is in:
Quote:
I think they {campus security} can legally act. Despite your protestations you have yet to show that the college doesnt have the right to police it's premises. That being the case they can legally exclude him for any reason.
So campus police... which are regular police on-campus- have the right to remove anyone, any time, for any reason from public property.

Yep, I think so. I think you mistake "public property" as meaning that you as an individual member of the public own it. If the interpretation you say is true then public universities would not be able to excluse anybody from any fascillity for any reason. Which means if I need a bed at any time I can squat in a students dorm room or over at the Chancellors house. I argue that the administration of the University has property rights to the place they hold as part of their duty to manage the premises for the public.

As such they CAN evict you from squating in a dorm room or the chancellors house or any building they chose. The have the right to ask anyone to leave that is the same as your right to ask someone to leave your own house. There is no law that says specifically that you Sigy has the right to ask people to leave your property, you are covered by basic property law to control the space you own. Likewise there is no specific law that says that public universities have the right to evict anyone from their premises because they to are covered by basic property law. It is up to you to show any legal reason they can not do so, and volentary codes of conduct are just that, volentary.

Folks like Accent can't just turn up and order campus cops around, they can't even make CC attend. Someone at the University ordered the cops to be there. Since neither you nor I know the contents of their orders to the cops and so we can't know if the cops worked within their authority or not but Rue's basic claim "you can't move people on from a public park therefore you can not ask someone to leave a public building" seems extremely dubious.

Let me restate. I contend that as part of their duties and responsabilities as managers of the university and pursuant to their responsability to protect their students and guests the university administration have the right to remove people from the premises at any time using basic property law. If this was NOT the case they would have no right to exclude anyone at any time for any reason for example they could not legally rent out space for any function that was not general access, they could not rent a student a dorm room nor could they force you to pay to audit classes.

This is entirely a seperate topic from if the police acted correctly and within college guidelines in evicting bozo. This is just that Rue's public park argument is stupid.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 3:52 PM

Fletch2 you're just so full of bull I don't know where to start. A public park is not the same as my livingroom. And a dorm is not the same as a public sidewalk. I'm too busy to get into a long discussion with you. Suffice it to say that if you were in the FF 'verse you'd definitely be Alliance.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 3:59 PM

Quote:
So in your world people should be able to do whatever they want unless they harm others. Well if you allow people to do whatever they want others will be harmed, it's human nature.

First of all "whatever they want" does not extend to harming others, and no- it's not "human nature".

Quote:
If officers had tried to physically remove Meyer before asking, then that fact will come up either at the inquiry or in Meyers suit which I'm sure is forthcoming based on interpretations of the incident like yours. Besides, isn't your assertion that Meyer was not asked to leave first baseless as well?

I hate to have to keep repeating myself on what SHOULD be obvious points. I never said that Meyer wasn't asked to leave before he was grabbed, all I ask for is some evidence that he was. Somehow, that distinction hasn't trickled into your thought process yet.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
They can ask him to leave; sure. He can tell them to take a long walk off a short pier.
Until they laid hands on him, he was merely loud and obnoxious; I do not believe, based on his behavior, they had any right to physically remove him; unless (possibly) they were asked to by someone with a legal right to remove him.

He had no right to disrupt the speech. He refused to relinquish the microphone. Officers asked him to leave, he refused and resisted and was arrested.

We've got a local crazy-guy (kinda like PN only old and senile). When the Mayor has an election rally he shows up with a loudspeaker and starts speaking. He gets arrested for disorderly conduct...every time. Not because he's interrupting the Mayor...who has a permit...but because he's causing alarm and refusing a lawful order to stop.

H

A quick point; the Mayor has a permit; it is clearly an opportunity for him to speak. Let's assume there is no question and answer for the Mayor's speech; in this case, it is clear that the 'local crazy-guy'(LCG) is being disruptive to the speech, the activity for which a permit is issued. In such a case, I would expect the officers to ask LCG to cease and desist before arresting him; this should be done clearly prior to laying hands on him and should he fail to do so, be subject to arrest. You know the law, am I wrong?

I am not clear that the police did this for Mr. Meyers; what I see is they wait for him to finish asking a question; then immediately jump him. Again, they should have positioned themselves between Mr. Meyers and the stage, and then clearly advised him he needed to be quiet and let Mr. Kerry answer; and other instruction as needed. Only if he failed to heed such instructions do I believe that laying hands on him would be permissible. And personally, I -still- think it would be unwise and unnecessary, but I acknowledge that may be a judgement call.

Edit: and another detail, Rue's favorite. For a moment, let's assume the Q&A was the last activity for the moment; then the 'speech' is technically 'over' at the point Mr. Meyers 'interrupts', -if- that is the case, does this affect what the officers would be 'in the legal right' to do?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2 you're just so full of bull I don't know where to start. A public park is not the same as my livingroom. And a dorm is not the same as a public sidewalk.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I agree. And a public park is not the same as inside a university building. Glad you agree with me that Rue's argument is bogus.

I suspect if you were in the FF universe you'd be a Mudder, some poor idiot working his ass off for the Man and so desperate for a hero that even Jayne Cobb will do. As long as you can think that he's "sticking it to the man" you'll happily overlook the fact that he's a selfish idiot.

(BTW I love Jayne but the point about Jaynestown is that people reinterprete peoples actions and character to satisfy their own preconceptions and needs. Mal is right, you can bet the statue would be back up by sunset.)

LEADB

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:23 PM

The only problem with that position Fletch is that much like a park, the university building -was- open to the public, free of charge. Thus Mr. Meyers was 'in general' permitted to be there. Given the university is 'public property' (it would clearly be a different case if it were private property), does that not affect the situation? For instance, if the -only difference- in the situation was that Kerry gave the presentation and Q & A at a public park; do you think that would have affected how you view the permissibility of what the officers did? If so, how?

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:47 PM

"And a public park is not the same as inside a university building."

Actually - it is. There are many parts of public universities - even inside public buildings, that are freely available to the ---- public. Hmmm, interesting about that word there, don't you think ? Do you think that's why it's called public space ? Of course there are some places that aren't available for general access - usually kept locked to protect equipment, records, money, or people. But then, even in a public park there are places that are off limits and locked up - usually for the same reason. For example, water-handling sheds, equipment sheds, storage buildings and the like. Strange, isn't it ? With the exception of dorms and food service (which are special paid-for services to individuals), public universities and public parks are equivalent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all "whatever they want" does not extend to harming others, and no- it's not "human nature".

Did you read my linked short story? It is human nature to think 'you' know better than others, this thread is a good example of that.
You seem to be glossing over certain end scenarios which are quite possible. What if you were making a presentation at work and one of your co-workers just sat there loudly humming? They are not physically harming you but harm is being done non the less. How would you handle that situation? And please do not say you would politely ask them to stop and they would comply. They are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do not get physical so why would they listen to you?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I hate to have to keep repeating myself on what SHOULD be obvious points. I never said that Meyer wasn't asked to leave before he was grabbed, all I ask for is some evidence that he was. Somehow, that distinction hasn't trickled into your thought process yet.

But it is your assertion that the situation was handled improperly so doesn't the burden of proof fall to you? Why not wrap your thought process around that for awhile.

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And a public park is not the same as inside a university building."

Actually - it is. There are many parts of public universities - even inside public buildings, that are freely available to the ---- public. Hmmm, interesting about that word there, don't you think ? Do you think that's why it's called public space ? Of course there are some places that aren't available for general access - usually kept locked to protect equipment, records, money, or people. But then, even in a public park there are places that are off limits and locked up - usually for the same reason. For example, water-handling sheds, equipment sheds, storage buildings and the like. Strange, isn't it ? With the exception of dorms and food service (which are special paid-for services to individuals), public universities and public parks are equivalent.

B]

Citation please. Show me where it says that you can't remove people from public university buildings.

LEADB

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:59 PM

Technical, in the US, it is supposed to go the other way; by definition, folks are permitted to be in public spaces. You need to provide the citations of the instances where it is permissible to remove someone from a public place, then we can discuss if the instance applies to the case(s) under discussion.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:00 PM

It's interesting to note that all the 'usual suspects' line up for police action against a person who was not posing a threat or doing anything wrong other than being impolite.

SignyM

On a complete side note, Fletch2 has never struck me a being pro-democracy. And I've concluded after many years that democracy and corporatism (maybe even capitalism) are antithetical to each other, so of course the people who are more pro-business are less pro-freedom. Business makes investments, and what business wants - needs - more than anything else is a guaranteed return. The larger the investment, the bigger the need for return. That means you need structure and control. But freedom is messy, even chaotic at times, liable to go off in different directions. Hence, they are mutually incompatable as social paradigms.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:04 PM

Flecth

While I agree with LeadB, the question was already answered by SignyM, so in the interests of furthering the discussion here it is:

510.00 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations
Most campus demonstrations such as marches, meetings, picketing and rallies will be peaceful and non-obstructive. A student demonstration should not be disrupted unless one or more of the following conditions exists as a result of the demonstration:

1. INTERFERENCE with the normal operations of the University.
2. PREVENTION of access to office, buildings or other University facilities.
3. THREAT of physical harm to persons or damage to University facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
570.00 Violent or Criminal Behavior

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Technical, in the US, it is supposed to go the other way; by definition, folks are permitted to be in public spaces. You need to provide the citations of the instances where it is permissible to remove someone from a public place, then we can discuss if the instance applies to the case(s) under discussion.

Except I would argue that inside a university building can not be a "public space" if there is a lock on the door, that's what makes it different from a park. If someone has the ability to control it and they do is that space truely public?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Flecth

While I agree with LeadB, the question was already answered by SignyM, so in the interests of furthering the discussion here it is:

510.00 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations
Most campus demonstrations such as marches, meetings, picketing and rallies will be peaceful and non-obstructive. A student demonstration should not be disrupted unless one or more of the following conditions exists as a result of the demonstration:

1. INTERFERENCE with the normal operations of the University.
2. PREVENTION of access to office, buildings or other University facilities.
3. THREAT of physical harm to persons or damage to University facilities.
."

Except my understanding is that

1) this is the volentary policy of a university
2) Not this university.

Show me the statute that says that a university can't lawfully eject someone from inside their buildings, not a guideline for if they can break up a demonstration.

I'm asking for a specific citation that makes throwing this kid out absolutely illegal. Otherwise we are talking about a judgement call based on college guidelines we haven't seen and which may have been superceeded by specific orders we do not know.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:19 PM

I think the above citations sufficiently show that there are only a few specific reasons to remove people from spaces at a public university. Therefore, all other presence is allowable.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:28 PM

Replying to SIGS post to get the thing properly formated (emphasis mine)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

ETA: OOC I googled "state university" + security + "policies and procedures" and went to the first site which was Montana State University's P&P. I searched their P&P for "curfew", "ejection" and "removal" and got no hits relevant to security. (But a lot about sign and window A/C removal) I DID come up with this, under "arrest"
Quote:
510.00 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations
Most campus demonstrations such as marches, meetings, picketing and rallies will be peaceful and non-obstructive. A student demonstration should not be disrupted unless one or more of the following conditions exists as a result of the demonstration:

1. INTERFERENCE with the normal operations of the University.
2. PREVENTION of access to office, buildings or other University facilities.
3. THREAT of physical harm to persons or damage to University facilities.
. Also
Quote:
570.00 Violent or Criminal Behavior
in which they focus on threat to person or property. Nowhere did I see implied that campus security could remove anyone for any reason.

------------
Always look upstream.

So as I stated. He is Citing a different Univerity's INTERNAL rules.

This is not the same as citing the statute which I requested. If someone tried this with you you would be into bitching and pet names by now.

Still waiting

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 6:34 PM

"Except I would argue that inside a university building can not be a "public space" if there is a lock on the door, that's what makes it different from a park. If someone has the ability to control it and they do is that space truely public?"

So are you saying that the DMV isn't a public building - that the public doesn't have a right to be there - b/c there's a lock on the door ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 6:52 PM

Are you saying I can protest in a DMV without fear of being evicted?

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE