disturbing the peace, violating the grounds policies, belligerence, he appeared intoxicated, failed to comply with security's directions, how many reasons do you need to arrest the menace?

so you are saying those rentacops were not told to prevent that kind of thing happening at the alaska state fair, that they were agents of obamanation?

Keep pushing us you fuck, unfortunately we are a civil lot, unlike you and your negro animal followers.

there's that fierce bagger pride.... let it out, don't hold that shit in man. :)

pull the trigger.

you wont. you're afraid.

Security guards do not have the legal power to arrest...their legal power extends no further than yours or mine...unless as I stated...Alaska has given them extraordinary legal powers...which I doubt. In most...if not all states...security guards can do no more than observe and call the police...period...unless they are defending themselves or some one else from being battered.

and they didn't arrest him. the police did.

Id tell you to ask several Iraqis I knew but unfortunately they are no longer here to tell their story.

Dont step into Michigan when the shit goes down, your kind isnt welcome here.

Where did you come up with that pigshit. They do not have the legal power to prevent...their legal powers do not extend beyond yours or mine...unless Alaska has given extraordinary powers to private security guards.

The man failed to comply with the rules, he DID appear drunk, he was very obviously hostile, was carrying a loaded weapon, and was detained by security until he was arrested by the police.

is there something in that equation I'm missing that you feel would have prevented this from going down this way? Aside from him following the rules in the first place and not being a public jackass?

Fuck Michigan. They're more broke than Mississippi, and that's an accomplishment.

He wasnt drunk, he is disabled, he has a conceal carry permit for the weapon, he is allowed by federal law to protest anywhere that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC including malls, fairs, etc.

Dont you have some meth to cook or something?

well, there are several levels of issue here.

the first, and the one I find interesting, is the radical right's desire to paint this as an attempt by obama to crush dissent.

the second is the role of rentacops in society.

everybody over the age of 20 knows rentacops can be dangerous, that they often do things that seem borderline illegal and get away with it, because our society approves of the use of private security to protect private interests with force.

So, if you are pissed about rentacops exceeding their mandate, there are thousands of cases like this every year, so protest away, because rentacops are dangerous and never to be trusted.

But, if you think these rentacops were pressing a political agenda, then let's discuss that question.

Thanks to Obama taking away all these guys jobs and civil rights for white people recruitment in the militia is improving, thanks bro. :thumbsup

oooooo...... scary.

Carrying a gun in Alaska is legal
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/statewide...dhandguns.aspx

He didn't look drunk, he looked pissed, besides, they're rent a cops, I would have shot the pricks

And when does detaining someone mean leaning on his head?

and you'd be posting from federal prison.

You have no idea how scary.
http://www.mass-murderers.com/mass_m...veigh_time.gif

I'm shaking in my boots. you shot some ragheaded camelfuckers with a trillion dollar army all around you, congress behind you, all vested up and armed with the best weaponry in the world.

so, killer, pull the trigger again, save us all from obamanation.

go for it. accomplish the mission.

haven't met a man yet that i fear.

I understand that...but the security guards clearly committed a battery upon him and probably kidnapping also applies. The security guards did not have the legal power to touch him...let alone to do anything else to him. They have the legal power to observe and call the police...and when the police arrive they then can...with cause...make a citizen's arrest.

If I weighed 175 and 2 guys over 300lbs started man handleing me? I don't think so, no where on that page about Alaska does it say you can't carry a gun there and if he thought he was in danger, then he would have got away with shooting them.
I've been thru the class for California, I know the rules

thats actually rather funny.

but movies like that work as comedy because of the ambiguous role of private police in our society.

http://privateofficernews.wordpress....teofficer-com/

In no way do I think the security guards had a political agenda. Apparently no one that had not paid to advertise at this event was allowed to advertise. They had every right to ask the man to leave the premises...and upon his refusal to do so...the only legal right they had was to call the police...but they committed a battery upon the guy in addition to detaining him which constitutes a form of kidnapping.

I agree.

However, I'll bet the guards are not charged with anything - because our society approves of that kind of use of force.

On the other hand, the larouchey will end up paying fines. This will cost him, especially if he tries to fight back legally.

you don't think private security can forcibly remove you from a property? I assure you, they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard

have the same powers of arrest as a private citizen, called a "private person" arrest, "any person" arrest, or "citizen's arrest."

I still dont get what barry had to do with it, your really stretching here lol

Actually, no I would not be wrong. There is a limited exception for shopping centers/malls, because the law considers shopping centers/malls to be public meeting areas. That exception doe not transfer to all private property, just shopping centers/malls.

As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activities of others on the property. You are under no First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice. Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can annoy customers or discourage others from eating there.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...tateaction.htm

Is this the badge the the guy had that said he was a state trooper? He didn't seen to be the real deal to me.:disgust
http://www.moosecop.net/Displays/Ala...P_Sergeant.jpg

it's fucking alaska. i'm sure those security guards were anti-obama as well. they were just doing their job.

Guess you like visits from the FBI. I just have one question for you, is it difficult for you to type with a straight jacket on?

But realizing they had overreached in the early cases, and sensitive to what they had done to private property rights, the Supremes reversed course in Hudgens v. NLRB, a 1976 case holding that the First Amendment guarantees no free speech rights in private shopping centers. And in an important 1980 case, Pruneyard v. Robins, the court upheld the general notion that citizens have no First Amendment rights to express themselves in privately owned shopping centers while still agreeing that a group of California students had the right to hand out leaflets and collect signatures in a private California mall.

The magic bullet in Pruneyard? The high court found that state constitutions may confer upon citizens broader speech rights than the federal Constitution, and the broadly worded California Constitution gave citizens the right to speak freely, even in private malls. The court dismissed the shopping center's claims that such a rule infringed on its free speech rights, by forcing it to tolerate unwanted speech on private property, and rejected the argument that forcing them to open up to public debate constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of private property.

Pruneyard was an invitation from the high court to the states to amend and interpret their own state constitutions to permit free speech in private forums if they so desired. But 23 years later, only six states have joined California in recognizing a state constitutional right to speak and assemble on private property: New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania (and several of them have waffled after doing so). Even the states conferring these broader speech rights do so only on two types of private property?shopping malls and non-public universities?and the only speech protected there is political speech.

http://www.slate.com/id/2079885


In short, Alaska could have expanded their own State Constitution to allow free speech upon private property...but the State decided not to.

Thus, it was correct for security to prevent this man's speech (anti-Obama protest).

I assure you that they cannot legally do so unless you are physically attacking them or someone else. The only legal power they have is to observe and call the police...I will repeat that their legal power extends no further than yours or mine. They do not have law enforcement powers...period. I am aware that security does all kinds of shit and gets away with it...with those that allow them to...and most people do.

ever been kicked out of a bar?

I notice that 3/4ths of the people posting in this thread are unable to tell the difference between private security and security gaurds

dude
 

take a chill pill

http://i38.tinypic.com/2vc9x85.jpg

No. I had a friend that went to a bar to retrieve his wayward wife. He demanded that she leave the bar with him and when she refused the ensuing argument attracted the security guards. They told him to leave the premises and he told them that he would not leave without his wife. They grabbed him...and escorted him from the bar. When he broke loose from them outside the bar he began fighting back. There were three security guards and he of course lost the battle. The security guards called the cops and when the cops saw that my friend was sober and listened to his story...saw that he was pretty beaten up...they refused to arrest him and instead...asked him if he wanted to make a citizen's arrest...which he did. The cops took the security guards to jail where they were booked on battery charges.

When the case went to court the security guards pled no contest to the charges. They had to pay a fine and was given suspended jail sentences.

BTW...this happened in California.