Man arrested for wearing a peace t shirt [Archive]

Bill Blake

03-05-2003, 04:16 PM

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 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.

TAD

03-05-2003, 04:22 PM

lessysteme posted this earlier. this is a damn shame & scary as ****. graemlins/mecry.gif

Martin Red

03-05-2003, 04:26 PM

"**** the security guard"

Pete Nice

03-05-2003, 04:26 PM

what a joke! i wonder if they'll ban the vendor from selling those shirts now?

lyot

03-05-2003, 04:33 PM

a public mall ? A peace t-shirt ? What ?

Oak Pk, IL's Best Bedroom DJ, serge

03-05-2003, 04:37 PM

damn peacenik hippie freaks. send all those commie traitors to jail.

i luv amerikkka! graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

floorgasm

03-05-2003, 04:44 PM

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml

Gojay

03-05-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
NEW YORK (Reuters) --
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.

Man, the Judge that has to deal with this case better have a spotless record!

Just go to show that these here U.S. are going to sh!t, when you can't even wear a t-shirt!

peace,
gojay

[ March 05, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Gojay ]

richierich

03-05-2003, 04:56 PM

Must have been an ugly assed t-shirt

DEEPHOUSEHEAD

03-05-2003, 05:37 PM

Am I reading this correctly ?
Is this saying that a man was arrested for wearing a T shirt that said "Give Peace A Chance",in a Public Mall ?
If so,my first question,is how could he even be asked to remove it ?That in itself is illegal.
I've been living outside of America for,just about,the last 10 years.This year,I'm scheduled to move back to America,with a Family.
Reading stuff like this,really makes me wonder.

Bold Soul

03-05-2003, 05:43 PM

See - this is what I'm saying. A crowded mall, people all around, security guards involved, so much money in salaries and lost time on the job - all because a very well connect politico was wearing a peace t-shirt?!

GTFOOH!

I need the WHOLE story before I ruin my day wondering what the hell is happening to America. :rolleyes:

Can anyone other than me see how the media is fanning the flames BOTH WAYS? graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

floorgasm

03-05-2003, 05:50 PM

malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.

konbit

03-05-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?

Dr. Freud

03-05-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?[/QUOTE]They sure could if they wanted to, but that would never happen. You see, the general public doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with kicking an "Anti-American demonstrator" out of the mall, but no one in their right mind would make someone leave because he or she was black. That would be considered "bad business." :rolleyes:

This really angers me mad1.gif

statuskuo

03-05-2003, 06:37 PM

Danny "the coolest jew" B has the best T shirts.

mhd

03-05-2003, 08:24 PM

he is an invited guest onto the private property of the mall, once they ask him to leave and he refuses he is trespassing. the mall will say his t-shirt was disruptive and upsetting to their customers and therefore bad for business

Walter M. Jones

03-06-2003, 01:07 AM

First someone wrote something online that came across un-ameri-CAN(like the restroom "can" as the country going down the tur-let)and got him canned by the Man. Now some Joe is walking through the public mall with Peace on his shirt.

Let me tell you this.

I have a shirt that should be banned from any malls that I got at Gadzooks in...well...the mall. It has a fake ad for "Harry Bush and Sons-We love layin' pipe" on it.

Slowly our freedoms are being taken away. Sometimes from each other. Shame. Peace...um I mean...er...WAR NOW!!! Big Brother is watching and he gone CRAY-ZAH! PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PE ACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.PEACE.wwwwwwwwww wwhhhhhhhhhhEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

lyot

03-06-2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Freud:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?[/QUOTE]They sure could if they wanted to, but that would never happen. You see, the general public doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with kicking an "Anti-American demonstrator" out of the mall, but no one in their right mind would make someone leave because he or she was black. That would be considered "bad business." :rolleyes:

This really angers me mad1.gif [/QUOTE]hello Dr. Freud,

So you think that they could get away with keeping blacks out of public malls if they want, just because it's a private property (just like the analogy with freedom of speech) ? I'm not a lawyer or a jurist, but I have difficulties to believe that would not be sanctioned before a court ..Does someone have more weblinks on this 't-shirt' case ? i'm interested in learning a bit more about it..

paix

f0reverneverm0re

03-06-2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Can anyone other than me see how the media is fanning the flames BOTH WAYS?why would the media want to do this?

miss al boogie

03-06-2003, 03:32 AM

LMAO...you'll have to forgive me, because this arrest outrages me. BUT THAT VERY SAME FOOD COURT IS WHERE I HAD MY VERY FIRST JOB AS A TEENAGER (EVER)!

Bill Blake

03-06-2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by mhd:
he is an invited guest onto the private property of the mall, once they ask him to leave and he refuses he is trespassing. the mall will say his t-shirt was disruptive and upsetting to their customers and therefore bad for businessTrue but the real issue is whether or not such a thing warrents the arrest.

The police should have used more discression.

Dr. Freud

03-06-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
hello Dr. Freud,

So you think that they could get away with keeping blacks out of public malls if they want, just because it's a private property (just like the analogy with freedom of speech) ? I'm not a lawyer or a jurist, but I have difficulties to believe that would not be sanctioned before a court ..Does someone have more weblinks on this 't-shirt' case ? i'm interested in learning a bit more about it..

paixFirst: I don't think they could "get away with it" in the long run. The shit would eventually hit the proverbial fan.

Second: sure, there would be sanctions, but they would unfortunately come after the fact that a racist action took place.

Third: fortunately, it's highly unlikely that one would be ejected from a mall (which I don't think are technically "public" places) just for being Black.

Fourth: it's also highly unlikely that one would be ejected from a mall for wearing a peace t-shirt, but that happened, so you never know.
graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

LEONARD REMIX RROY

03-06-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Freud:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?[/QUOTE]They sure could if they wanted to, but that would never happen. You see, the general public doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with kicking an "Anti-American demonstrator" out of the mall, but no one in their right mind would make someone leave because he or she was black. That would be considered "bad business." :rolleyes:

This really angers me mad1.gif [/QUOTE]Private Property - Correct, just like a Dance Club "We have the right to refuse anyone" and don't have to give a reason either.

lyot

03-06-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dr. Freud:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?[/QUOTE]They sure could if they wanted to, but that would never happen. You see, the general public doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with kicking an "Anti-American demonstrator" out of the mall, but no one in their right mind would make someone leave because he or she was black. That would be considered "bad business." :rolleyes:

This really angers me mad1.gif [/QUOTE]Private Property - Correct, just like a Dance Club "We have the right to refuse anyone" and don't have to give a reason either.[/QUOTE]yeah, maybe that's true..But they gave a reason.. They said the message on the t-shirt was disruptive..You see the link with a person being refused in a nightclub because he's black ? If they give a reason, and it goes against some of the most basic rights preserved by the American constitution, isn't that something that's illegal ?

Dr. Freud

03-06-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dr. Freud:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by floorgasm:
malls aren't public tho...they're privately owned and you have to leave if they ask you to.Yes, but are they able to do that for unconstitutional reasons (i.e. freedom of speech)? Even though it is "privately owned," could they ask you to leave because you are black?[/QUOTE]They sure could if they wanted to, but that would never happen. You see, the general public doesn't necessarily see anything wrong with kicking an "Anti-American demonstrator" out of the mall, but no one in their right mind would make someone leave because he or she was black. That would be considered "bad business." :rolleyes:

This really angers me mad1.gif [/QUOTE]Private Property - Correct, just like a Dance Club "We have the right to refuse anyone" and don't have to give a reason either.[/QUOTE]yeah, maybe that's true..But they gave a reason.. They said the message on the t-shirt was disruptive..You see the link with a person being refused in a nightclub because he's black ? If they give a reason, and it goes against some of the most basic rights preserved by the American constitution, isn't that something that's illegal ?[/QUOTE]Believe it or not, it is not illegal. Take the Augusta Country Club as an example. They simply do not allow women as members. If Augusta wanted they could also say "no Black members." I presume the same thing goes for nightclubs or any other private venue / event / whatever.

Weird, huh?

Dr. Freud

03-06-2003, 03:17 PM

[ March 06, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Freud ]

konbit

03-06-2003, 03:31 PM

I would be curious to know where the line is. It is definitely illegal to not allow blacks into the local diner (right?) Isn't that what the '60s fixed...getting those signs out of the windows?

However, as someone said...The Ku Klux Klan coould certainly ban blacks from joining their organization.

Where is the line...

lyot

03-06-2003, 04:08 PM

very interesting topic..thanks for all the responses..

I would think that a club like the Augusta Country Club is not the same thing as a public yet privately owned mall..Membership of a club is something completly different. No one needs to be a member to be able to acces a mall. I agree that private clubs have the right to decide upon certain criteria who they accept to be their members. But a public mall is a place where everyone should be able to enter, with no discrimination against race, nationality, belief or whatsoever..These are constitutional rights, if I'm not mistaken. I do agree there's an element of public order which gives the management of a public mall the right to interfere and kick people out (for instance drunk people who hassle customers) ..That's where a security firm is for : to keep things safe..Now, kicking out people because they are wearing a t-shirt with a peace message on is in my opinion not such an element of public order (i hope i translate this correct from Dutch)..That's why i think it's legally speaking illegitimate that they throw someone out on these grounds..I think the principle the judge should apply is this : there's not enough an infringement on public order to limit the basic constitutional right of free speech..(he was just peacefully walking in the mall with his son, and not harassing people by showing everyone his t-shirt, for instance )

just my two cents..

does someone have more info (links?)

peace

[ March 06, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: lyot ]

Chris Conrad

03-06-2003, 04:13 PM

another intertesting angle..palces of employment cannto descriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or gender, but many places of employment are indeed private places or private property...

Chris Conrad

03-06-2003, 04:14 PM

another intertesting angle..palces of employment cannto descriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or gender, but many places of employment are indeed private places or private property...

Bold Soul

03-06-2003, 04:16 PM

There are many resources on the web that provide information related to constitutional rights, civil rights violation and other very important facts that would help this BOGUS ASS DEBATE turn into something meaningful.

Phew... graemlins/stupid.gif

And I still want the WHOLE STORY on this guy that got arrested. The WHOLE STORY - not just the side that makes the anti-war crowd get giggly. :rolleyes:

[ March 06, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

lyot

03-06-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
There are many resources on the web that provide information related to constitutional rights, civil rights violation and other very important facts that would help this BOGUS ASS DEBATE turn into something meaningful.

Phew... graemlins/stupid.gif

And I still want the WHOLE STORY on this guy that got arrested. The WHOLE STORY - not just the side that makes the anti-war crowd get giggly. :rolleyes: you could add something constructive maybe, in stead of pointing out there exist plenty of websites around.Give a good link for instance..

rob gregory

03-06-2003, 04:30 PM

Peace.

Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/06/tshirt.arrest.ap/index.html

manfred

03-06-2003, 04:46 PM

as a lawyer, this dude knew what was up. the mall, private or not, is an area of public accomodation and mall goers are ensured a certain amount of free speech protections.

this guy knew they were wrong, and as any good attorney does, he smelled a law suit and the $$$. Gettin' paid is always a good incentive to stand up for civil rights and civil liberties.

peace,

manfred

Bold Soul

03-06-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
There are many resources on the web that provide information related to constitutional rights, civil rights violation and other very important facts that would help this BOGUS ASS DEBATE turn into something meaningful.

Phew... graemlins/stupid.gif

And I still want the WHOLE STORY on this guy that got arrested. The WHOLE STORY - not just the side that makes the anti-war crowd get giggly. :rolleyes: you could add something constructive maybe, in stead of pointing out there exist plenty of websites around.Give a good link for instance..[/QUOTE]http://www.google.com

Type in anything that you want to SUBSTANTIATE before you SEEK TO INFLUENCE OTHERS with a BOGUS PERCEPTORY ARGUEMENT.

Again - whatever. :rolleyes:

Bold Soul

03-06-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
Peace.

Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/06/tshirt.arrest.ap/index.htmlNo one will specify how his "behavior" disrupted other patrons. I wonder why not. Was he really pushing his views on other patrons, engaging them in debate (as one report alluded to) or was he just wearing the shirt and some people got pissed off?

Why is the press not reporting clearly?

[ March 06, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

konbit

03-06-2003, 04:55 PM

[ March 06, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: konbit ]

jurren

03-06-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/06/tshirt.arrest.ap/index.htmlNo one will specify how his "behavior" disrupted other patrons. I wonder why not. Was he really pushing his views on other patrons, engaging them in debate (as one report alluded to) or was he just wearing the shirt and some people got pissed off?

Why is the press not reporting clearly?[/QUOTE]this really does make a difference. once he was asked to take of his shirt, or leave the mall, what happened? when you read the article, it could be that they immediately called the police and handed him over for arrest, just because he was unwilling to take his shirt of, not because he would not leave immediately. if that was the case, they were wrong doing so.
if on the other hand he refused to take of his shirt, AND refused to leave, and make a big fuss about not leaving the premisses, he would thereby draw a lot of attention to himself, and the argument of him disrupting other visitors of the mall would make a lot more sense.
why this information is not given to us by cnn? i dunno, maybe that's too much to write about, and it takes away from the news value, you could even argue that if the second scenario was what happened, there would hardly be any news value to the article, unless the actual circumstances were left out.

Bold Soul

03-06-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by jurren:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/06/tshirt.arrest.ap/index.htmlNo one will specify how his "behavior" disrupted other patrons. I wonder why not. Was he really pushing his views on other patrons, engaging them in debate (as one report alluded to) or was he just wearing the shirt and some people got pissed off?

Why is the press not reporting clearly?[/QUOTE]this really does make a difference. once he was asked to take of his shirt, or leave the mall, what happened? when you read the article, it could be that they immediately called the police and handed him over for arrest, just because he was unwilling to take his shirt of, not because he would not leave immediately. if that was the case, they were wrong doing so.
if on the other hand he refused to take of his shirt, AND refused to leave, and make a big fuss about not leaving the premisses, he would thereby draw a lot of attention to himself, and the argument of him disrupting other visitors of the mall would make a lot more sense.
why this information is not given to us by cnn? i dunno, maybe that's too much to write about, and it takes away from the news value, you could even argue that if the second scenario was what happened, there would hardly be any news value to the article, unless the actual circumstances were left out.[/QUOTE]Exactly! Fanning the flames on both sides of the streets keeps EVERYONE consuming the "news". There have been many indictments pre-protest season of how the current Right Wing powers control the media and that there is a conspiratorial absence of Left Wing viewpoint.

I consider the very reporting of this story by major news outlets PANDERING. Shameful shit. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

manfred

03-06-2003, 05:18 PM

for the supreme court case pruneyard shopping center et al. v. Robins et al.
check:

http://www.4lawschool.com/property/pruneyard.shtml

mhd

03-06-2003, 05:35 PM

he is an invitee on the mall premises, once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing, then the mall security calls local police to arrest him for trespassing. does not matter if he causes a ruckus or not, his refusal is enough

JMNYC

03-06-2003, 05:36 PM

the charges have been dropped, fyi. meanwhile, people who can't afford to spend a night in jail and have to pay for a lawyer and childcare and having a record have now been "quietly encouraged" not to protest the war.

konbit

03-06-2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
he is an invitee on the mall premises, once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing, then the mall security calls local police to arrest him for trespassing. does not matter if he causes a ruckus or not, his refusal is enoughThat court case seems to say different.

mhd

03-06-2003, 05:42 PM

maybe not, maybe the opposite has occured, when they see a 61 year old white lawyer and his son in subtle yet defiant protest risk criminal prosecution, and then see 100 more strangers protest the arrest, maybe more people are inspired to act

mhd

03-06-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by konbit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mhd:
he is an invitee on the mall premises, once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing, then the mall security calls local police to arrest him for trespassing. does not matter if he causes a ruckus or not, his refusal is enoughThat court case seems to say different.[/QUOTE]the court case is construing a california statute, we don't know what the nyc statute says, in any event, t-shirt guy never said that he was not trespassing