I thought the meaning of the OP was pretty freakin’ obvious, and i forgot that lawyers would weigh into the thread at some point to argue icayune details
I guess I should also point out that I was not asking if the arrest had been blessed or authorized by a rabbi.
And seriously, thank you Bricker for forcing us to be precise in our language around legal terms and matters.
So… Now that we can all agree that “anyone with a brain can see it was pretextual and exposes the fact that Miller wants to dodge these issues so badly he’ll permit a reporter to be arrested on a pretext instead of answering.”"…
What should the repercussions of this “arrest” be?
Oh I agree with the same question if it was performed by a cop.
But I am torn here. On the one hand, what you are saying makes sense. On the other, I am not sure “false arrests” is a subset of “arrests” - and if this is false arrest it was false arrest the moment it happened not when it is later determined to be a false arrest.
Do you, a Christian, educated in the United States, with a very wide vocabularly and extensive, nay, volumous exposure to written and oral arguments and a very wide range of writing really believe the words that are coming out of your mouth.
An act is commited in seeming contravention of acceptable standards of behaviour, if not the law (which is yet to be determined), someone asks “was that kosher” and your first repsonse is to examine it to see if it was in compliance to kasruth.
All I can say Bricker, is that if ever I commit a murder, and I want someone to sell my side of the story to the jury with absolute conviction I will be calling you.
Don’t be ridiculous. Asking if a detention is “kosher” is asking if all the rules were followed, if it’s legitimate. It doesn’t literally mean does it comport with the laws of kasruth; it means “Does it comport with applicable laws?” or “Is it legitimate?” or “Were the rules followed?”
And in further demonstration of the correctness of my position, when I raised the question, you’ll note that the responses were not, “I’m not talking about whether the arrest followed the rules,” or “I’m only pointing out that this flouted acceptable standards of polite behavior!” No, no – there were multiple attempts to justify the position that the action was illegal. And, indeed, one of those bore fruit: the observation that the hallway was not rented and thus any “trespass” in the hall was nonsensical.
I’m uncomfortable with this being the only repercussion, particularly when the candidate is currently publishing his own “spin” on the matter; From his website “Liberal Blogger “Loses It” at Town Hall Meeting Obsession with Republican Nominee leads to physical assault, publicity stunt” Compliant media will cover “both sides” - the truth, and the spin of “assault” that the candidate has put on it.
Note that there was no charge of physical assault against the reporter, only accusations. Miller is probably open to charges of libel, but he knows that the reporter won’t ever go there.
When a reporter is the victim, they are understandably reluctant to press charges, as they want to be seen to be unbiased, and may want to continue to cover the election and the candidate.
What happens then, is the candidate wins; They have succeeded in stopping embarrassing questions by physically detaining a reporter, they have created a chilling effect for future reporters asking questions, and they are free to publish a false story about what actually happened.
With apologies if this was answered above, but I don’t see how the reporter’s conduct in anyway qualifies as criminal trespass.
As 11.46.350 says in relevant part:
It seems that the arresting persons fail AS 11.46.350(b)(2) in that they did not appear to be authorized persons.
I will leave it to someone else to search Alaska case law to see whether the personal notice under (b)(2) above must be reasonable or not, or if notice delivered at minute 1 second 0 makes one a trespassor at minute 1, second 1.
Since the trespass question is mooted by the hallway, I will provide a cite on request for the “authorized person” part of the formula, but the short answer is that any person authorized by the owner is acceptable here.
In other words, it’s not trespass for other reasons, so this is a question of only academic interest, but since I did see case law on point, I will post it if anyone cares.
As for the shoving, that would only be probable cause if the arrest were for shoving. It was not; the arrest was for trespass. Even if there were probable cause to suspect one crime, that is not justification for arrest for a completely different crime.
And of course, I’m sure that things get even stickier when the person ordering the “trespasser” to leave also physically impedes that person from leaving.
I would go a bit further than the idea of the reporter seeming to be unbiased…
What reporter wants even the slightest implication against his name that he takes any sort of case, charges or whatever against newsmakers?
That’s not really very good for your career right?
I can imagine the scenario…Christine O’Donnel gets an interview request from him…say weren’t you the guy that charged that other fellah with slander / libel? Uhmmm…no thanks, I don’t want to run that risk…
If there were criminal charges, they would be something like false arrest, not slander or libel (there’s no real argument for slander and those are grounds for lawsuits, not criminal charges). But given that this incident lasted all of half an hour and it can only harm the reporter’s career, there won’t be any charges.
bengangmo was explaining why THE REPORTER would not press charges, even though he was wrongfully detained. Also why the reporter would not pursue a private case of libel, even if the candidate for senate publishes obvious lies about the reporter.
What continues to piss me off about this is that the bully wins. I hate it when the bully wins.
Questions about the candidates questionable past business dealings were not answered.
Hopfinger was physically detained and falsely held against his will.
Bullshit statements damaging to Hopfinger’s career are put on a website with no repercussions.
And most importantly - a message is sent to the press: Question me and I will have you chained to a stairwell with impunity and publish lies about you to damage your reputation. I will control what the press asks, when they ask it and when they can speak to me.
Question, Bricker: suppose I’m at that event, and some goon with a headset tells me to leave. He may have been authorized by the owner (or lessor) of the premises to give the order, but how the heck do I know that? And does the law take it into account if the goon hasn’t been willing to answer the question, “who are you, and what gives you have the right to kick me off the premises?”
Sure. The jury has to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, both that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order AND that you knew or should have known that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order.
Your knowledge is necessry to establish your mens rea. If you believed that the goon was an imposter, then you didn’t have the necessary mens rea to complete the crime.
Their judgement has to assess both an objective and a subjective component: they have to find both that subjectively you held a belief he was an imposter AND that this belief was objectively reasonable.
So in short: to convict, the prosecution would have to show that either goon answered your question, or there was something else that made it evident to a reasonable person that the goon had the authority. It doesn’t have to be a notarized copy of the contract, though. It just has to be reasonable. If you asked “Who are you?” and got no answer, the jury could certainly infer that you didn’t believe he had any authority… but of course, presumably the prosecution could point to other evidence that should have convinced you.
Remember that none of this relates to probable cause, but to what’s necessary to convict.