Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt (AT THE MALL)

reuters ^ | 3/4/2003 | reuters

[TLBSHOW]

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

— NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

"I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment.

Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17.

He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.

[Illbay]

I have faith in TLB. He is a real bulldog about stuff like this.

[delacoert]

Solicitation is canard.

The court can catagorize a Christian distributing leaflets and "witnessing" as soliciting if it wants to.

But are his actions significantly different from a Hari Krishna holding a religious ceromony and distributing literature?

Mark Cahill sued Town Center Mall in Cobb County, Ga., after mall security guards asked him to leave for distributing religious literature to mall patrons and leaving leaflets in the common areas and bathrooms. Security guards said they noticed Cahill "witnessing" in the mall's food court. Georgia high court backs mall's no-solicitation policy

The only issue is public property vs. private property.

[perfect stranger]

Yes, I agree. see my post #86

[CharacterCounts]

I hope so.</P>I'm going to be, so if you post to me, I won't be able to respond till tommorrow.

[Ben Bolt]

Another lawyer .. I read the 1st para and concluded he is a defense type . God forbid lets micro melancholy this thing to the ends of the earth .

Social engineering jackass .

[Illbay]

Can you not agree that, for example, a high school principal telling a kid he can't wear a cross during school, is quite a bit different from an American Airlines manager telling a Hare Krishna to "move on" away from the AA gates and stop bothering the passengers?

[CharacterCounts]

That supposed to be I'm going to bed.

I am getting tired.

[weegee]

The other shirt had the No War In Iraq slogans. Together they were an "antiwar" protest movement.

He says that he wanted to see what kind of reaction he'd get. That admission is the incitation.

[Ben Bolt]

Illbay ? I wish you had the balls to do the proper social service . In the mean time go steal a life .

[Cvengr]

I'll volunteer a few sample interests.

Shop owners have economic interests to preserve their location and reputation amongst their clientele.

Mall owner has financial and liability interests in the event of a riot or potential of future riots which could cost the mall it's reputation or goodwill amongst the paying public.

A riot in recent history may have caused substantial publicity for the mall which may have detracted from sales.

Repetition of small scale political statements by public members at the mall might set precedent for the mall to become more of a political arena than a sales arena and hinder future sales. Accordingly, the mall owner would have a financial interest to discourage such a reputation from forming.

Local population and demographics may indicate many relatives of 9/11 casualties influence purchasing power in the area. Sympathetic 'pro-terrorist' inaction by the mall owners to 'anti-war' protest could favor extreme badwill amongst mall patronage with purchasing power. Mall then has an interest to take action in public against 'anti-war' protesters.

Even in public parks, the right to protest and assemble might have to obey local ordinances to acquire a permit to protest for public safety.

Each one of these interests could also be stated from a civil rights perspective emphasizing a particular right as basis for decision.

When one considers the exact phrase used in the son's shirt,...which he removed upon being asked,...and the phrasing of the father's shirt, which he kept on after being asked to remove or leave, and the fact that they specifically had the particular phrases placed on the shirt,...I believe a very important issue arises regarding intent of the two lawyers.

Circumstantially, it stinks. Reads as though burden of proof is significant in the issue.

[Illbay]

The more we argue this, the more "fuzzy" it seems to me. I admit that I'm not at all sure what a court would say about this. I kind of hope there aren't any "unusual circumstances" in this case, and it's just a case of him wearing a shirt, so that we can see what the law will say.

Probably the mall will settle out of court without avowing any responsibility, and the question will remain unanswered, but I wonder what the deal really is.

[TLBSHOW]

I called him back one more time this is the add on...

He said the guard came up to him and said he had to take off the Tshirt he said he would not then they said either take off the Tshirt or leave the mall he refused to leave and they called the police who said the same thing either take off the tshirt or leave the mall but added or you will be arrested. He again refused and was arrested.

He said he did nothing the whole point was to be peaceful and the shirt is like a christmas shirt.

He ordered food from Subway. He is calling it a free speech story. He thought we lived in a free speech country.

I found that other story that is on this thread from Boston.com it says just what he ALSO TO ME here...


On Dec. 21, about 20 people from Upper Hudson Peace Action, wearing T-shirts that read ''Peace on Earth'' and ''Don't Invade Iraq,'' were told to leave by mall security and the police. There were no arrests.

''I really think the problem lies with mall management and that kind of policy,'' said Julie Belles, who participated in the ''Mall Walk for Peace.'' ''They refused to ever meet with us.''

Belles said the group was only shopping, not staging a demonstration or trying to cause a disturbance.

''What you refer to as `political protest,' we call a `peaceful reminder,''' Belles wrote in a Dec. 30 letter to mall manager Mark Wagner.

A mall spokeswoman did not return calls Tuesday by The Associated Press.

Downs said he knew about the group forced out of the mall. But his actions were not part of an organized effort and were not intended as a protest, he said.

''I think it was in part to just see what would happen if I put a T-shirt on that said, `Peace,' and walked around in Crossgates,'' Downs said. ''I really hoped that nothing would happen because if something did happen, it would mean that I was living in a country where you really don't have free speech.

''I still think I have the right of free speech.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/063/region/Man_charged_with_trespassing_a:.shtml


HE SAYS HE ISN'T GOING TO SUE THEM.

I will find out what happens, he thinks he will have to pay a fine as he said the town is very protective of the mall as its their big money maker. He is a left wing peace person that is for sure.

[Illbay]

I think this guy is a known quantity, that's my theory. I think when they approached him it wasn't because it was some anonymous customer wearing a shirt, but because it was HIM wearing a shirt, and he was a proven troublemaker.

JUST MY OPINION, but absent any hard facts that's how it feels to me.

[weegee]

It may lead the mall to more specifically state their "protest"/solicitation policy at all entrances/exists.

I've seen some businesses do this (more typically with union protestors at groceries stores here in Houston).

They make it clear that the protesting (while permitted) must be done at the sidewalk of the business and not inside the store itself, does not permit cars to be flyered, etc.

I can't recall but it is possible that the nature of the protest may even be limited to business dealings that the company itself is involved in (no protesting apartheid in South Africa at Randall's groceries when they have no involvement in apartheid/South Africa).

[TLBSHOW]

I went to the rat hole to see if they have the story and they plan to protest the mall and all the stores there. They have a msnbc link. And a picture of the father and son.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1

[TLBSHOW]

Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.

from msnbe story

[Irish Eyes]

I think that you may have nailed the real reason that he was asked to leave the mall or remove the shirt. Sounds reasonable to me.

[KrisKrinkle]

Mighty statist of you.
_________________________________________________________

Since it's late, the only reference I consulted was dictionary.com and I found:

a. Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

b. Statist: 1. A statesman; a politician; one skilled in government.

Since the discussion is not about economic planning and policy, I'll ignore the part about "politician" and consider that you are complementing me by implying I have statesman like qualities and that I have skill, if only in government.

Thanks, but I was just referring back to the founders words about the reason governments are instituted.

As to a "right to guarantee these rights," such right may or may not exist and be reserved to the people as acknowledged by the Tenth Ammendmant. I have not considered it so I am not willing to say. If it does, I'll leave it to the hirelings in government who are hired to represent me and secure my rights to take care of it. If they do a bad job, I will do what I can to replace them with new hirelings.

There's an interesting question here though. If an individual does not cooperate to guarantee the rights of others, who will cooperate with that individual to guarantee his rights when he is outnumbered, when he is overwhelmed and standing alone against those who would abrogate his rights? Perhaps it's a matter of obligation--duty and honor.

[Spirited]

"FR has gradually changed that way over time compared to the "early days"?"

Yes, indeed. We did not, then, have the partisanship which is now so heavily entrenched. They only thing to which there was a preference was to guard the Constitutionality of the representative Republic.

[Spirited]

"FR has gradually changed that way over time compared to the "early days"?"

Yes, indeed. We did not, then, have the partisanship which is now so heavily entrenched. They only thing to which there was a preference was to guard the Constitutionality of the representative Republic.