Just so I can have all my facts straight, where has this been established? In this thread somewhere?
Pardon me if I take the clauses guaranteeing a free press and freedom to peaceably assemble seriously and take umbrage at a candidate who is attempting to secure a place within the senior legislative body of this country riding roughshod on both the spirit and the letter of those guarantees. I say it bodes ill for the country in general if this is how Mr Miller intends to treat our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms if elected to office.
It seems to me you prefer the picking of nits to securing the overall welfare of the animal the nits are being picked from. Which is your right, but I respectfully point out that if the animal dies, so does the nit buffet.
So far we have an unnamed source at the district saying that the hallway was not included in the rental. While I’m inclined to accept that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I would not say it’s been “abundantly established.”
In any event, let’s assume that the trespassing arrest was without foundation. The arrest was also for assault, and it seems clear that this charge can be sustained by the rpeort’er own admissions.
If so, then the arrest for trespassing, while in error, is harmless, since the arrest for assault alone would have involved the same detention.
What does “lawfully” mean here?
Thank you and goodnight. 
Maybe now we can discuss the primary issue.
I’m not sure if it’s been linked in this thread, but it’s definitely linked in the Election forum thread.
Here:
Nice the way this website automatically inserts a linkback to the story if you cut and paste any of the text. Cool feature, that.
And you don’t find that rather bare-bones requirement somewhat problematic?
There was no arrest. The police did not detain or arrest anyone. There was a detainment by hired security. Let’s get the terminology straight.
I am not aware of accusations of “assault” against the reporter at the time of the detainment. (accusations by Miller’s group after the fact strike me as post hoc excuses. In fact, an independent witness statement denies any “assault” by the reporter took place.
ETA: To save time, after the “assault” charge proves to be without substance, what are you going to move on to next?
There was a private person’s arrest, which is what Alaska calls a citizen’s arrest. You can read about it in Bricker’s link upthread.
That the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order. See Johnson v. State, 739 P. 2d 781, (Ala. App. 1987).
:rolleyes:
Yes, let’s.
And
From the link posted above
Wherever the analysis takes us. But since Hopfinger himself acknowledges shoving someone, it will be essentially impossible to prove the assault charge without substance.
I have no idea how to answer this question. Problematic with respect to what?
It’s the same as virtually all citizen’s arrest type requirements.
If I’m walking down the street and become surrounded by hostile persons who (presumably) are restricting my movement, why wouldn’t a shove be self defense? What other recourse have I other than a physical act?
Bricker, legalities aside, do you think it’s proper that a candidate for the U.S. Senate has a reporter arrested in these circumstances?
He has moved into defense lawyer mode. Legalities aside? It is to laugh.
I don’t know what “proper” means in this question.
“Wise?” No.
“Permissible?” Yes.
I don’t see anything scary or untoward about it. He’s campaigning, and this is a perfect time to show people how he behaves. If people don’t like this, they shouldn’t vote for him. It’s much better to do this now than after he’s elected, in fact, for that very reason.
“Proper” implies an agreed-upon set of rules of conduct. He was entitled to rent a facility and ask people to leave if he didn’t want them there. So unless you’d like to refine “proper” somehow, sure it was proper.
And you’re in… what, spurious assertions mode? “Let’s get our terminology straight!” Uh… that is… never mind about the terminology, since it doesn’t favor my point!
So I can assume that if you’re at a public function and some retard puts cuffs on you and says “I arrest you!”, and you’re subsequently released by the police,
and
You are asked in an official capacity “have you ever been arrested?”
You will of course answer in the affirmative.
I’d like you to point out where I said that, or alternatively, please stop putting words in my mouth.
thank you.
ETA: In other words I contend that “citizen’s arrest” is not the same as “arrest by a police authority”.
The standard for arrest is probable cause.
His admission that he pushed someone is enough evidence to sustain an arrest for assault. A trial may later determine that he was privileged to use self-defense, which is an affirmative defense that, if believed, negates criminal culpability. But that doesn’t remove the probable cause that exists for the initial arrest.
Of course. That’s an arrest.
If he does sue, I assure you he’ll be saying he was arrested, since that’s kind of key to a false arrest claim.
That’s why “official capacity” question are generally “Have you ever been convicted?” and not “Have you ever been arrested?”