Denver is throwing out the rule book.

This is a discussion on Denver is throwing out the rule book. within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SIXTO Why does everyone fall for misleading headlines? Come on people, headlines are written to sell papers, and not meant to replace ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 66

Thread: Denver is throwing out the rule book.

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Why does everyone fall for misleading headlines? Come on people, headlines are written to sell papers, and not meant to replace actually reading the article or coming up with logical conclusions on our own.

    No where in the article does it say that this person was arrested for taking pictures, or being on a sidewalk. Thats simply what he was doing and where the incident began.
    Sixto,
    In all honesty, I didn't even read the headline, just the article. Please don't get me wrong -- I am very pro law enforcement. But most of all, I'm pro Constitution. I have little love for the media but in this case, I'm not really looking at this guy as a member of the media but in trying to evaluate whether a law was actually broken by the producer, try substituting a hypothetical Joe Average into the position.
    No where in the article does it say that this person was arrested for taking pictures, or being on a sidewalk.
    I believe that since one of the charges against him is trespassing, that's exactly what they are saying. Have you watched the video? Does an off-duty officer acting as a private security guard, albeit in uniform, have a legal right to put his hands on a citizen and push them from a public sidewalk into traffic in the street? Since this off duty officer in uniform did not place the producer under arrest but instead waited for on duty officers to arrive and do so, I'm guessing he knew he had no right to arrest. I also find it interesting that even on duty law enforcement didn't arrest until two hours later and only after the hotel management had signed a complaint.

    I just find some of the aspects of this very disturbing. If it's proven that the sidewalk is somehow private property I'll shut up. But if it is, it will be the first sidewalk I've seen adjacent to a city street that was private property.

    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    I've never seen a city sidewalk owned by the building,they singled this guy out then apparently off duty cop realised he's gonna get himself and his department sued so he gets hotel management to sign a BS complaint for trespassing,The security guard had no right to put his hands on the guy and shove him in traffic he's lucky the guy wasn't hit or he'd be facing serious charges.Sorry but cops like him give all other cops bad names.I can't wait to see how this plays out in court especially since it was filmed
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    I'm wondering what he was really investigating to cause such actions taken...defacto legitamizing the investigation...and who were the power brokers and what connections were they forging?

    Rick

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,589
    Why does everyone fall for misleading headlines?
    This article's headline only said: "ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors."

    There is very little misleading about that, and it matches well both the article's contents and other articles about the same incident. At the core, I think it fairly likely that WAS the major cause of the arrest.

    ... not meant to replace actually reading the article or coming up with logical conclusions on our own.

    No where in the article does it say that this person was arrested for taking pictures, or being on a sidewalk.
    Implying folks aren't thinking.

    A police official said the charges were trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order.

    This and other articles have the detail they have. News is traditionally twisted and false to a degree, particularly in the early stages. That's a logical conclusion all should have, on principle. And yet, it's what we have to make certain conclusions, logical or otherwise.

    The news so far seems to agree that (a) the reporter and cameraman were on a public sidewalk, (b) they were not blocking the front entrance to the hotel, (c) "dozens" of other pedestrians were walking by that same spot [strongly suggesting the crew wasn't blocking anything].

    Questions in my mind are:

    1. Does the hotel own or have any authority over the sidewalk at the spot where the reporter/cameraman were first seen taking pictures?

    2. Were the reporter/cameraman impeding traffic, impeding pedestrian flow, impeding ability to enter/exit the hotel, or in any way impeding operation of the hotel operations? Were other news crews there, adding to the morass of people at that spot, thus impeding traffic by their numbers?

    3. "Tresspass." Were the reporter/cameraman legally allowed to be at that spot on the sidewalk, along with "dozens" of other pedestrians there at the time? If not, what exact statue(s) dictate that this reporter/cameraman were "pedestrians under false colors," or whatever?

    4. The hotel had signed a complaint prior to the arrest, apparently, and had notified the reporter/cameraman they weren't wanted. On what legitimate basis did they have grounds for complaint, beyond the appearance of being bummed that seemingly-important persons were being inconvenienced by having their pictures taken with donors and other folks who wouldn't want to be seen together?

    5. What specifically makes the security guard's order legal? The mere fact he uttered it, or that it rests on some solid legal ground? Can an order be legal merely because of utterance, or must it pass some stronger standard ... such as the accused actually breaking some law?

    6. "Interference." Interference of what, specifically? Interference of a security guard's coffee break? Interference of the guard's ability to get his task completed? Interference with proper, justified and legal execution of the law, or a lawful arrest, or anything else? The articles are vague on all counts, here.

    With the paucity of specifics on these points, so far, across dozens of news articles written to-date, it's hard to know specifically. Hence, logical conclusions are what we have.

    My logical conclusions, for Sixto's and others' benefit:

    A. The hotel may or may not own or have authority to control that spot on the sidewalk. Can only await facts, on this point.

    B. Irrespective of anything else, it's logical to conclude that a fat-cat hotel with "very important" persons would protect its clientele by going as far as it's able on their behalf. All it would take is one screaming donor or angered senator speaking with a hotel manager to get the wheels turning. This is how it often works, regardless of how it actually worked in this case. Thus, it isn't unreasonable to think it likely that this is how it happened, here. Might well not have been that, but it's not unlikely. Only the other fatties in the lobby would have heard the exchange [if it happened], but so far they aren't talking.

    C. The angle of this specific article is to make it look like the 1A and right to be in a public place was impinged, here. That goes without saying. So, it's going to be heavy on items like the sidewalk's public nature, other pedestrians walking by, etc. This should certainly make someone think twice.

    D. The dozens of other news articles and interviews made in the past hours regarding this incident come from several sources who saw what was going on. They aren't all dripping from the original spigot of the first article. Most of the information written or spoken so far largely agrees with other articles/discussions. Lacking "evidence" to the contrary, it's reasonable to think the basic points are true: on the sidewalk at a place where they had every right to be; amongst other pedestrians and thus not impeding traffic; fat-cats and "important" people being photographed wouldn't like being photographed together for all the usual reasons.


    If you've got further intel, by all means give. Else, we've got what we've got. I think we can agree that ALL is speculation at this point, hence hammering folks for making certain logical conclusions is silly, particularly when so many past instances of such things turn out to be exactly what appearances suggest they might be: fat-cat donors and back-room types not wanting to be put on film and on record with the power brokers. Likely, all the rest is just a smoke screen, in this case, and it's not unreasonable to think so when so little specific details are forthcoming from the hotel, the police or others as to the particular nature of the charges' grounds.

    My big question is just this: What was a security guard doing masquerading as the Boulder County Sheriff?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    Your arguing minutia. The fact is the DNC didn't want photos of Senators and big donors sucking up and the city was more than happy to throw the law out. I hear the video has the cop telling the reporter he's lucky he didn't get a beating. When it's over the reporter will likely have charges dropped and be told, "You can go." Just remember who you're voting for.
    And maybe the same kind of story will pop up in Minneapolis next week.

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    Your arguing minutia.
    Yes, and rightly so. Minutia and the overall.

    By the way, the "minutia" is what will (or won't) justify the charges.

    The fact is the DNC didn't want photos of Senators and big donors sucking up and the city was more than happy to throw the law out.
    The assumption is, you mean.

    I happen to agree with sentiment, but it isn't fact yet.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #37
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,728
    I'm not implying that folks are not thinking, but they are over thinking the situation based on the headline.
    Taking pictures or walking down the sidewalk has nothing to do with the arrest, its the actual charges listed; thats why I'm implying over thinking.

    The charges fit the crime, yes I've watched the video. No, he wasn't pushed into the street. The reporter chose his own path, the officer did not force him in any direction.
    No, you cannot loiter on the sidewalk, especially in front of a business... a business that hired detailed officers to enforce that law.

    Does it look bad? Yeah, it does, it could have been handled better... then again, we only see the end result of what certainly was a much longer engagement. Funny how the media works.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,589
    I suppose if one's relying on this one headline only, then a person is definitely "over" thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Taking pictures or walking down the sidewalk has nothing to do with the arrest, its the actual charges listed
    Pictures of donors and senators outside of a back room are incentive enough for all stops to be pulled. That aside ...

    The charges were for trespass. That requires ownership or legitimate authority over that sidewalk/area. The charges rest on the rightful authority of a business to dictate what occurs on that sidewalk. If that authority does not exist, then it has everything to do with the charges in question. IMO, if there was no trespass, no blocking of the business, no getting in the way of pedestrians or causing a problem, then there was no possibility of "interfering" and no legal basis for ordering anyone to leave that sidewalk. It all hinges on that.
    Last edited by pgrass101; August 28th, 2008 at 10:14 AM. Reason: remove language
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #39
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,728
    This is the definition for criminal trespass direct from CO law. It loosely fits what happened here, and if CO is like every other state, they also have a straight trespass too, that will fit much better. Its a catch all, much like a loitering charge that many states/cities have.



    Third Degree Criminal Trespass (18-4-504)

    1. A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.
    2. Third degree criminal trespass is a class 1 petty offense, but:
    (a) It is a class 3 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor for the county in which the land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and
    (b) It is a class 5 felony if the person trespasses on premises so classified as agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony thereon.

    Also, a sidewalk in front of a business or home is not public property. It is public access and right of way, but it does belong to the business or home owner.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,589
    "Public" sidewalk, or hotel property? ALL hinges on that.

    By the clip in the video, the yellow paint on the sidewalk suggests it's the loading area for the hotel's lobby. But then, the camera's pointing away from the hotel, so it's hard to tell.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,642

    It makes no difference

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post

    Also, a sidewalk in front of a business or home is not public property. It is public access and right of way, but it does belong to the business or home owner.
    This makes no difference whatsoever. It is a place where the public passes by, gathers, and folks have a right to be present.

    More than likely, there is some sort of easment and the city paid for the sidewalk, or required the hotel to pay for its construction for public purposes/public use.

    Were there signs up that said, "no stopping?" No trespassing? No loitering? No photography permitted?

    Somehow I doubt it. I haven't seen such in front of any major hotel in any major city.

    Someone objected to the picture taking---and the game got on.

    The actions by the security guard and the officer seem indefensible.

    Of course, we will soon find out. ABC will provide the necessary resources to defend their reporters and if the reporters are NOT in the wrong, the actions taken will cost the Denver tax payer. They may also cost the officer involved and the hotel.

    And yes, it is a stretch to argue that when the officer demanded they get off the sidewalk, they get arrested for stepping into the street and allegedly blocking traffic. What would you expect them to do? Fly?
    Flap their wings and levitate?

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    I'm not implying that folks are not thinking, but they are over thinking the situation based on the headline.
    Taking pictures or walking down the sidewalk has nothing to do with the arrest, its the actual charges listed; thats why I'm implying over thinking.

    The charges fit the crime, yes I've watched the video. No, he wasn't pushed into the street. The reporter chose his own path, the officer did not force him in any direction.
    No, you cannot loiter on the sidewalk, especially in front of a business... a business that hired detailed officers to enforce that law.

    Does it look bad? Yeah, it does, it could have been handled better... then again, we only see the end result of what certainly was a much longer engagement. Funny how the media works.
    If being in an area while doing one's job is considered loitering, we're going to overload the courts even more than they already are.
    loi·ter (loi'tər)
    intr.v. loi·tered, loi·ter·ing, loi·ters

    1. To stand idly about; linger aimlessly.
    2. To proceed slowly or with many stops: loitered all the way home.
    3. To delay or dawdle: loiter over a task.

    As for the video, maybe different eyes see different things. I clearly see the guard with his hands on the producer "guiding" him towards the street (unless he intended to "guide" him into that parked, black car.


    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  14. #43
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,728
    Was he simply passing by? No. He was standing there talking on the phone with his camera crew and all their equipment. Yes, they might have been doing there job, but if that job was troublesome for another business, then they very well might have a violation.

    Are there signs on every street corner telling people they can't have open containers of alcohol, signs that say no assualting others, or they can't set up a hot dog cart and sell hot dogs? No... that would be stupid.
    I guess you want every law posted on every building for the publics benefit? Thats a silly notion.

    The frame you have posted is well into the pushing. Look at the very begining of the physical confrontation, thats what counts.

    And no, they were not arrested for being in the street!

    To be clear, I do view this as being slightly heavy handed, but I also know that only the results of the twit reporters actions were shown in the video; not the entire story.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    Of course you notice that CBS and NBC weren't there; they have been busy giving the Dems all the free press they want.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  16. #45
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    Right,wrong...it doesn't matter.

    The big boys got what they wanted, which was NO one taking pictures.

    Later on, it will be determined that the reporter did nothing wrong, the owners of the hotel will admit their mistake, apologize profusely and offer the reporter a weeks stay at the hotel for free. If that doesn't work, they will offer up some sort of cash settlement and everyone will be happy.

    Of course, all of this will go unnoticed because the story would have already been forgotten. It happens all the time and that, is how they operate above the law doing whatever needs to be done,when it needs to be done. Its nothing new really.



    and the wheels of big machine keep on turning...
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Throwing knives
    By Adkjoe in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2011, 12:54 AM
  2. Any thoughts on throwing knives?
    By Norwolf in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 24th, 2007, 03:05 AM
  3. Supreme Court announcement Denver home rule
    By MountainPacker in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2006, 08:58 PM
  4. Book Review: The Gun Digest Book of Guns For Personal Defense
    By Captain Crunch in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 20th, 2005, 03:21 AM