Reporter handcuffed for asking AK US-Senate candidate a question!

[Hayabusa Rider]

So did everyone read where this was in a rented building? Miller handled it badly but if someone is asked to leave then they are obligated to go. Everyone failed here except the police.

 

[skyking]

Let's look at the rented building argument:
1) Was it invitation only?
2) Was the public invited?

I'd look very closely at the paperwork and methodology that established the event. If there was no clause or disclaimer about it being a private affair, and the general public was invited, then those security guards don't really have a leg to stand on.
The reporter won't be pushing it as he does not want this to be about him, but I think he'd have basis for a civil case if they did not pre-document it being a private event.

 

[lothar]

Let's look at the rented building argument:
1) Was it invitation only?
2) Was the public invited?

I'd look very closely at the paperwork and methodology that established the event. If there was no clause or disclaimer about it being a private affair, and the general public was invited, then those security guards don't really have a leg to stand on.
The reporter won't be pushing it as he does not want this to be about him, but I think he'd have basis for a civil case if they did not pre-document it being a private event.

If it's a campaign stump, chances are it's invitation only.
Who the hell running for congress would want to invite the entire public?

Invite your supporters, put a few "plants" here and there to ask fake tough questions and you're good to go.

Must there really a disclaimer?
There's no disclaimer in the rented hall and apartments across the street ...Does that mean the public is allowed to go in?

 

[her209]

If it's a campaign stump, chances are it's invitation only.
Who the hell running for congress would want to invite the entire public?

Invite your supporters, put a few "plants" here and there to ask fake tough questions and you're good to go.

Must there really a disclaimer?
There's no disclaimer in the rented hall and apartments across the street ...Does that mean the public is allowed to go in?

Let's say it was invitation only. Why was the journalist invited?

 

[her209]

Let's look at the rented building argument:
1) Was it invitation only?
2) Was the public invited?

I'd look very closely at the paperwork and methodology that established the event. If there was no clause or disclaimer about it being a private affair, and the general public was invited, then those security guards don't really have a leg to stand on.
The reporter won't be pushing it as he does not want this to be about him, but I think he'd have basis for a civil case if they did not pre-document it being a private event.

Just look on Joe Miller's website: http://joemiller.us/events/

 

[lothar]

Last night on Laurence O'Donnell's show he played another video where the private security guards clearly said to Tony Hopfinger "You are under arrest"-they didn't merely detain him until the police arrived, they purported to actually arrest him and placed him in handcuffs. As reported above the security guards actively threatened the other reporter attempting to interview Hopfinger with arrest also, and forced other reporter out of his vicinity.

Frankly I could see this sort of crap happening in Soviet Russia or Red China but I never thought I would see reporters being arrested for merely doing their jobs at political events. It's a truely scary situation regardless of your political idealogy.

What if the security guard had instead said "you're being detained" and handcuffed the person...
If a security guard is able to do the same thing using the word "detained" instead of "arrest" then could it just be a matter of semantics? But yeah, they security guards were idiots to have used the word "arrest", which certainly wouldn't help their case.

The security guards at many retail outlets carry guns/handcuffs and can use them as long as it's on the private property. I've seen quite a couple of people in handcuffs sitting on a chair in a room waiting for local police to arrive.
Our guards seem well trained and of course I don't think they're foolish enough to use the words "arrest" like the ones here did.

 

[lothar]

Let's say it was invitation only. Why was the journalist invited?

I have no idea.
That's a question for the Joe Miller's campaign to answer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's say it was invitation only. Why was the journalist invited?

It doesn't matter. Read my quote of the Canadian Press.

Suppose you invite someone to an event you are paying for. For whatever reason there is someone there you'd like to go. At that point he's obliged to leave or else it's trespass.

The prosecutor clearly states it here.

Parker said the Miller campaign rented the school at which the event was held and was entitled to decide who was allowed there.
"If the press is invited, they have every right to be there," he said. "But if they say to a particular member, 'We don't want you here,' then that person is persona non grata and can't stay."

There is no ambiguity here.

 

[lothar]

And just because you have an invitation card to an event doesn't mean you're allowed to stay.
You could be asked to leave at any time for *any* reason by the celebrant, or the person hosting the event, or someone working on their behalf.

 

[Perknose]

It doesn't matter. Read my quote of the Canadian Press.

Suppose you invite someone to an event you are paying for. For whatever reason there is someone there you'd like to go. At that point he's obliged to leave or else it's trespass.

The prosecutor clearly states it here.




There is no ambiguity here.

Parker is not a prosecutor, he is a police officer. in my long experience as a PI, I can tell you that police officers are often quite wrong about the law.

And yes, there is some ambiguity here. From your own quote:

Hopfinger could possibly face a trespassing charge, if the municipal prosecutor pursues it, said police Lt. Dave Parker. Dropzone has asked for that, Fulton said.

Parker added that security could be charged with assault for handcuffing the editor. McKay said he doesn't believe Hopfinger will push for that, saying Hopfinger "doesn't want to be the issue here."

Not only is the guy you quote not the prosecutor, but the prosecutor could well determine the case meritless.

No ambiguity? The prosecutor? Both your facts and your conclusions are in serious disarray.

 

[her209]

And just because you have an invitation card to an event doesn't mean you're allowed to stay.
You could be asked to leave at any time for *any* reason by the celebrant, or the person hosting the event, or someone working on their behalf.

Well we shall see if Joe Miller decides to distance himself from the security firm he hired should Hopfinger decide to pursue civil damages.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Parker is not a prosecutor, he is a police officer. in my long experience as a PI, I can tell you that police officers are often quite wrong about the law.

And yes, there is some ambiguity here. From your own quote:



Not only is the guy you quote not the prosecutor, but the prosecutor could well determine the case meritless.

No ambiguity? The prosecutor? Both your facts and your conclusions are in serious disarray.

You are correct. The person was the police officer. The prosecutor has the option of pursuing this.

So in your time as a PI, do you know where people who have rented a building for an event cannot ask a person to leave? I've known people asked to leave wedding receptions, graduations, whatever.

I named the police officer instead of the prosecutor. Find fault with his statement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here you go Perk.

It's a televised but private Obama fundraser, and a couple guys from a rightwing paper start asking questions and won't stop. They are asked to leave. They don't. Obama shows up. They don't pose any physical danger, but they decide to ask him things and by god they are members of the press!. Obama is just going to have to listen to them. Sure.

 

[lothar]

What if the security guard had instead said "you're being detained" and handcuffed the person...
If a security guard is able to do the same thing using the word "detained" instead of "arrest" then could it just be a matter of semantics? But yeah, they security guards were idiots to have used the word "arrest", which certainly wouldn't help their case.

The security guards at many retail outlets carry guns/handcuffs and can use them as long as it's on the private property. I've seen quite a couple of people in handcuffs sitting on a chair in a room waiting for local police to arrive.
Our guards seem well trained and of course I don't think they're foolish enough to use the words "arrest" like the ones here did.

Any expert want to comment on this?

 

[Perknose]

You are correct. The person was the police officer. The prosecutor has the option of pursuing this.

So in your time as a PI, do you know where people who have rented a building for an event cannot ask a person to leave? I've known people asked to leave wedding receptions, graduations, whatever.

I named the police officer instead of the prosecutor. Find fault with his statement.

Again, you have your facts wrong, they specifically didn't rent the entire school, Haya:

[Drop Zone Owner]Fulton said he arrested Hopfinger for trespassing and assault. He said he had the right to arrest him for trespass because the campaign had rented the space from the school district and had the right to exclude anyone, though the district said it rented the cafeteria, stage and parking lot, not the hall where the arrest took place.

Also, as it turns out, Joe Miller LIEDD:

Miller gave interviews to Fox and CNN on Monday. He told Fox, "I might also note that the middle school itself required us by a contract for a campaign, required us to have a security team." He told CNN, "There was a -- a private security team that was required. We had to hire them because the school required that as a term in their lease."

But district spokeswoman Heidi Embley said that wasn't true.

"We do not require users to hire security," she said. Renters must only have a security plan to protect users and the school itself, she said, and can resolve the issues with "monitors."

The contract the district has renters sign requires groups to make an "expectation speech" at the beginning of an event reminding people to be respectful, to park properly, and to remain only in permitted areas. That did not happen Sunday.

Finally, it also turns out the private goons involved in the forceable detention were ACTIVE DUTY ARMY:

Meanwhile, the Army says that two of the guards who assisted in the arrest of the journalist and who tried to prevent two other reporters from filming the detention were active-duty soldiers moonlighting for Miller's security contractor, the Drop Zone, a Spenard surplus store and protection service.


The soldiers, Spc. Tyler Ellingboe, 22, and Sgt. Alexander Valdez, 31, are assigned to the 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. Maj. Bill Coppernoll, the public affairs officer for the Army in Alaska, said the two soldiers did not have permission from their current chain of command to work for the Drop Zone, but the Army was still researching whether previous company or brigade commanders authorized their employment.


The Army allows off-duty soldiers to take outside employment if the job doesn't interfere with their readiness, doesn't risk their own injury and doesn't negatively affect the "good order" and discipline of their unit, Coppernoll said.


"They've got to be up front with the chain of command," Coppernoll said. "The chain of command needs to agree they can do that without affecting the readiness and the whole slew of things that are part of being a soldier that they need to do first."​

Whether it is found that those soldiers had some kind of permission or not, does it bother you at all that active duty military personnel were used to forcibly detain a member of the press under what was, despite your claim of "no ambiguity whatsoever", to be incredibly shady circumstances?

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/18/1507982/questions-surround-use-of-security.html#ixzz12qbnUGIn​

​

​

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again, you have your facts wrong, they specifically didn't rent the entire school, Haya:

If the incident and arrest happened outside of the area that was rented then I think it would be fairly obvious that there was no legal justification for the arrest. Miller screwed up big time. If this had happened where Miller rented, then he'd have the same right as Obama in my next post. It wasn't so he's SOL.

Also, as it turns out, Joe Miller LIED

I don't have a "Vote for Joe Miller" sticker. With very very few exceptions I assume that politicians are creatures of expediency. That is they lie when it suits them. I said that about Bush and Obama and everyone in between. I don't see why Miller would be an exception, especially in light of his past offenses.

Other than the lie I don't care if someone has security even if it isn't required. That's pretty much their business. They had better get it right though.

Now regarding active soldiers, I have no problem with them supplementing their income in this way AS LONG AS it is done according to regs and they comport to the highest standards expected of military men or women. There is some question that they may not have gotten permission in which case their asses need to be smacked. If they exceeded their authority under the law, they need to have it smacked twice.


The question I had in my mind was if Miller had legal grounds for arresting the editor. That is a separate issue from if he should have. Even when the information I had suggested that Miller had the right, you will note that I thought it wasn't wise at all. Note the comment about having a tougher skin.

If the details of the case are as you present, then the editor was wronged. I'll say this is also unambiguous.