Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-05 04:38pm

IG-88E wrote:
Protest leaders were scheduled to meet with the mall's manager after the rally. Calls to mall officials were not immediately returned.
This phase inherently pisses me off. It can mean almost anything, yet it's almost always meant to be interpereted in a negative fashion.

If a reporter calls me house when I'm at work, he's certainly not going to have his call returned until I get home hours later. If he dials a wrong number, I'm of course not going to reply. Yet somehow, all the blame rests with me. Goddamn media.

What they don't tell you is that ANYTHING the store says is Discoverable in a lawsuit and thus can be used against them. They need to call their attorneys and consult them about what to say, which is why the other party usually takes so long to respond, usually with a scripted statement prepared by attorneys whoch essentially says nothing because that is the state of litigation today. Anything you say can be used against you so wtahc what you say.

No they never tell you that, they always say, if you have nothing to hide why not come out and just tell the truth?? Because truth is a very relative thing in a lawsuit.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-03-05 05:13pm

What ever this mysterious undefined disruptive behaviour might have been, the fact that the shirts were ever a concern for the Mall is moronic in it self.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-05 05:17pm

jegs2 wrote:From what I've heard, Combs is a bit of an outcast in the liberal community for participating on Fox News...

Of course. After all, by participating on Fox news with a Conservative, he is admitting that there is another point of view to take into account. Typical US Liberals like to believe that their point of view is the only legitimate stance on any topic and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brain-dead reactionary.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-05 05:41pm

Of course. After all, by participating on Fox news with a Conservative, he is admitting that there is another point of view to take into account.

I can also get the conservative side of the story from Crossfire, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, John Stossel, Sam Donaldson, just about anyone on Fox, etc.

Typical US Liberals like to believe that their point of view is the only legitimate stance on any topic and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brain-dead reactionary.

[hasty generalization]Your typical US conservatives are so intolerant of other views, they demand that anyone who disagrees with America are unamerican, communists, Saddam lovers, and terrorists.[/hasty generalization] (but hey, we all do it)

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-05 06:22pm

Well, aside from the fact that we really don't have the whole story yet, technically the mall is private property, and the owners/operators can throw someone out for dress code violations. Perhaps they put out a temporary restriction on people wearing clothing dealing with the war because they simply didn't want any scuffles from the peace loving hippies and the gun lovin fundies.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-05 06:31pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, aside from the fact that we really don't have the whole story yet, technically the mall is private property, and the owners/operators can throw someone out for dress code violations. Perhaps they put out a temporary restriction on people wearing clothing dealing with the war because they simply didn't want any scuffles from the peace loving hippies and the gun lovin fundies.

That's a good point. Malls are supposed to be shopping centers, not political halls. That means that they focus on the conduct of business, and potential shoppers might catch wind that protesters are harrassing people trying to shop, thus costing the mall business and making them lose money.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-05 06:34pm

Like Wicked said, it's private property.

And I'm still skeptical of the matter. It reminds me of that Green Party Activist who claimed she had been denied access to a flight because of her political views, while in reality she was denied access to the flight for being a uncooperative bitch during screening.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-05 06:41pm

I'm willing to bet he was accosting shoppers and trying to convert them to his way of thinking about the war effort. If that's true, then it's no different than turfing panhandlers and Hare Krishnas out of the mall.

PS. The fact that he's a lawyer suggests to me that he went in there looking for an excuse. But the store management was incredibly stupid by making his shirt an issue. They should have simply said "please leave the mall; you have been accosting other shoppers", which would not give him ammunition for a lawsuit.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-05 07:48pm

If the news is correct, then it's not hard to conclude that they were asked to leave explicitly because of the shirts. They were given an ultimatum to either take them off or leave the mall, not to either stop harassing shoppers or leave the mall.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-05 07:58pm

Durandal wrote:If the news is correct, then it's not hard to conclude that they were asked to leave explicitly because of the shirts. They were given an ultimatum to either take them off or leave the mall, not to either stop harassing shoppers or leave the mall.

I don't see it though. Of all the offensive apparel worn by today's Americans, an anti-war t-shirt would hardly stand out. More than likely, it is as others here have hypothesized: The guy was being a jerk and bothering other people. If he'd been wearing a shirt that said, "REPENT YE SINNERS FOR HELL AWAITS!" and preaching Christ, the outcome would have been no different.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-05 08:28pm

jegs2 wrote:
Durandal wrote:If the news is correct, then it's not hard to conclude that they were asked to leave explicitly because of the shirts. They were given an ultimatum to either take them off or leave the mall, not to either stop harassing shoppers or leave the mall.
I don't see it though. Of all the offensive apparel worn by today's Americans, an anti-war t-shirt would hardly stand out. More than likely, it is as others here have hypothesized: The guy was being a jerk and bothering other people. If he'd been wearing a shirt that said, "REPENT YE SINNERS FOR HELL AWAITS!" and preaching Christ, the outcome would have been no different.

The mall didn't specify shit. According to the guy, it was because of his t-shirt. The mall has given nothing to refute that, just vague accusations that he was "being disruptive." True, they can do what they wish with private property, but they still come off looking like assholes.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-05 09:05pm

Ive met people who actually believe you should not be able to wear a peace t-shirt. Why is it so hard to believe that just maybe the security guards were such indivuals and decide to harass this guy? I guess we will find out more as time goes by. If the case is true as presented then its pretty fucking pathetic.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-03-05 09:35pm

The fact that the shirts were custom-made and not an off the shelf item also lends credence to the idea that there was something else on the shirts that made them offensive.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-05 09:42pm

Luke Starkiller wrote:The fact that the shirts were custom-made and not an off the shelf item also lends credence to the idea that there was something else on the shirts that made them offensive.

They showed the shirts on TV. They only had print. One side said something like "NO WAR IN IRAQ" and the other said "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE". Might not be exact quotes, but there was'nt anything I saw that was shocking. Like
"THIS MALL SUPPORTS TERRORISM" Or pictures of Bush buttfucking an SUV.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-03-05 09:43pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Luke Starkiller wrote:The fact that the shirts were custom-made and not an off the shelf item also lends credence to the idea that there was something else on the shirts that made them offensive.
They showed the shirts on TV. They only had print. One side said something like "NO WAR IN IRAQ" and the other said "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE". Might not be exact quotes, but there was'nt anything I saw that was shocking. Like
"THIS MALL SUPPORTS TERRORISM" Or pictures of Bush buttfucking an SUV.

Alright, nevermind that then.

AylaKat · Post by **AylaKat** » 2003-03-05 11:02pm

Heh. John Stewart just mentioned how completely retarded this guy's arrest is. Just thought I'd mention that.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-05 11:13pm

I can also get the conservative side of the story from Crossfire, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, John Stossel, Sam Donaldson, just about anyone on Fox, etc.

Despite the Shows name, Those on Crossfire rarley push thier guests, MSNBC NEVER does and CNN only does it rarley, Only Hanity ever pushes his guests hard when they start lieing or fucking the truth over(Inculding when a rumor started that the NJ Senator(The fellow who replaced the Toruch) anyway after he was replaced a rumor got started that he was suffering from Alzimers and Hanity pushed him on it, Finaly around fourty seconds of basicly this

"Answear the question sir, have you or have you not been diagonsted with Alzimers?"
"Shawn(Hanity) I'm going to tell.."
"Yes or no, Have you been diagonsted"
"Shawn the American people"
"Yes or No sir, you can explain all you want after but first answear the questioin
"No I have not"

Hanity out of all the media has a strong habit of cutting the bullshit of Libreals down to size or cutting it off mid-sentance, Comb's does not do it so its noticable when they have a conservative screwball and a Liberal screwball on the show, Hanity will cut the Libreal's BS off as soon as they start spouting while Comb's might or might not respond to it more liley ignore it and ask the next question unless Hanity makes a comment and then Combs will jump all over it

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-06 01:45am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, aside from the fact that we really don't have the whole story yet, technically the mall is private property, and the owners/operators can throw someone out for dress code violations.

Dress code violations?? My memory is a bit hazy (after all I didn't spend a lot of time in malls out there), but do Malls in the States post up dress codes for shoppers? I could understand if there was a State dress code (I.E. No nudity or sexually explicit apparel in public places), but in a Mall? And to arrest him for violating it, it would have to be publically posted, so he would have to be aware he was breaking it, so this would have been a non-story.

The follow-up story mentioned that "Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers.", so it's more likely his action that were a problem. Unfortunately the media seems more interested in pushing the T-shirt angle. Has anything been expanded as to his actions, or who made the initial complaints?

Lord Sander · Post by **Lord Sander** » 2003-03-06 08:18am

Charges being dropped: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030305_2723.html

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-06 08:49am

Lord Sander wrote:Charges being dropped: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030305_2723.html

Tim Kelley, director of Operations for Pyramid Mall management, the mall's owner, said in a statement that Downs' behavior and clothing was disruptive to other shoppers.

His shirt was disrupting shoppers

? Apparently in Iran, you can be arrested for speaking out against the politcs of the hard-liners.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-06 08:59am

Durran Korr wrote:Like Wicked said, it's private property.

That doesn't matter according to a ruling of the US Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 7&invol=74

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-06 09:13am

Darth Wong wrote:I'm willing to bet he was accosting shoppers and trying to convert them to his way of thinking about the war effort. If that's true, then it's no different than turfing panhandlers and Hare Krishnas out of the mall.

PS. The fact that he's a lawyer suggests to me that he went in there looking for an excuse. But the store management was incredibly stupid by making his shirt an issue. They should have simply said "please leave the mall; you have been accosting other shoppers", which would not give him ammunition for a lawsuit.

And I'm willing to bet if they were really harassing people, they would have been charged with harassment.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-06 09:52am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Like Wicked said, it's private property.
That doesn't matter according to a ruling of the US Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 7&invol=74

A precident set by a more liberal Supreme Court would not necessarily stand in today's Supreme Court. Remember: The Supreme Court also made a notorious ruling in the Dredd-Scott case, so they're not always right, and they do reverse themselves over time.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-06 10:36am

jegs2 wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Like Wicked said, it's private property.
That doesn't matter according to a ruling of the US Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 7&invol=74
A precident set by a more liberal Supreme Court would not necessarily stand in today's Supreme Court. Remember: The Supreme Court also made a notorious ruling in the Dredd-Scott case, so they're not always right, and they do reverse themselves over time.

Do you think they should reverse this one?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-06 10:38am

We must see the entire story behind this, I.E., police reports. Both of these views are going to be skewed, and, sadly, are lawyers really known for their honesty? No. We gotta see what the dis-interested third party has to say about this. For all we know, he might have been trying to stage a peace rally right then and there in the food court.