Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 121

Thread: Shredding our Constitution a little bit at a time....

  1. #1

    Shredding our Constitution a little bit at a time....

    Newsday.com
    [SIZE="4"][B]Police arrest anti-war protester, 80, at mall[/B][/SIZE]

    BY ANASTASIA ECONOMIDES AND MATTHEW CHAYES

    [url]http://www.newsday.com/news/local/nassau/ny-liwar305631629mar30,0,3314981,print.story[/url]

    [B]An 80-year-old church deacon was removed from the Smith Haven Mall yesterday in a wheelchair and arrested by police for refusing to remove a T-shirt protesting the Iraq War.[/B]

    Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as "graphic anti-war images." Zirkel, a deacon at Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal in Wyandanch, said his shirt had the death tolls of American military personnel and Iraqis - 4,000 and 1 million - and the words "Dead" and "Enough." The shirt also has three blotches resembling blood splatters.

    Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers [B]and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. [/B]Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn't leave, police said. Security placed him on "civilian arrest" and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel [B]passively resisted [/B]attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.

    But Zirkel said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts.

    The others complied, but Zirkel said he refused, and when he wouldn't stand up to be removed and arrested, authorities brought over a wheelchair. "They forcibly picked me up and put me in the wheelchair," said Zirkel, a deacon at one of the poorest Catholic parishes on Long Island, where a devastating fire recently destroyed the rectory and storage areas.

    Zirkel was charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest. He was released on bail. A spokeswoman for mall owner Simon Property Group did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

    Generally speaking, a mall has the right to control what happens on its property, said John McEntee, a Uniondale commercial litigation lawyer.

    Activists with dueling opinions had gathered to support and oppose America's five-year campaign.

    As Zirkel was being wheeled to the police car, the crowd chanted "We shall not be moved!" Moments later, they moved; police and mall security had ordered them off the property. Many joined a larger anti-war crowd assembled by the mall's entrance, off mall property, on Veterans Memorial Highway.

    They were complemented nearby by protesters saying the Iraq war is vital for security.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Did he have a permit to hold a protest?

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=New York Mick;2457738]Did he have a permit to hold a protest?[/QUOTE]

    did he need a permit to wear the T-shirt, Mr. Orwell?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    What does this have to do with the Constitution?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    You should have bolded this part of the story.
    [QUOTE][B]Generally speaking, a mall has the right to control what happens on its property[/B], said John McEntee, a Uniondale commercial litigation lawyer.[/QUOTE]


    The mall asked him to turn his shirt inside-out. He refused so they told him to leave. He refused that as well so they had him arrested.

    That has nothing to do with the Constitution. Technically he was bothering patrons of the stores in the mall, so the mall asked him to leave. They have every right to do so.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2457742]What does this have to do with the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

    right to free expression, it's in the bill of rights

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2457742]What does this have to do with the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html[/url]

    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12)

    Article [I.] (See Note 13)
    [B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/B]

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;2457769]You should have bolded this part of the story.



    The mall asked him to turn his shirt inside-out. He refused so they told him to leave. He refused that as well so they had him arrested.

    That has nothing to do with the Constitution. Technically he was bothering patrons of the stores in the mall, so the mall asked him to leave. They have every right to do so.[/QUOTE]

    It has [B]everything [/B]to do with the constitution. Its what protects us from evolving into a fascist society.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2457771]right to free expression, it's in the bill of rights[/QUOTE]


    What if he was in the food court handing out pictures of aborted fetuses. Do you think he should have the right to do that?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2457786]It has [B]everything [/B]to do with the constitution. Its what protects us from evolving into a fascist society.[/QUOTE]


    Well, why not just do it in the mall parking lot?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2457789]What if he was in the food court handing out pictures of aborted fetuses. Do you think he should have the right to do that?[/QUOTE]

    not if I was eating a burrito

  12. #12
    Since the mall is private property this is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

    He could have been on the public corner outside of the mall and the security guards would have left him alone.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2457780][url]http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html[/url]

    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12)

    Article [I.] (See Note 13)
    [B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/B][/QUOTE]

    A mall is private property. When they arrest him on public property, get back to me.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2457790]Well, why not just do it in the mall parking lot?[/QUOTE]

    Do what in the parking lot? The main issue is that the police arrested the man because they did not approve of his shirt.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2457811]Do what in the parking lot? The main issue is that the police arrested the man because they did not approve of his shirt.[/QUOTE]

    No, they arrested him because the mall didn't like his shirt, and he refused to do anything about it...on THEIR property.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    Nothing to do with free speech...just utterly retarded to arrest an 80 year old guy in a wheelchair. But I suppose there is a reason they are mall cops...not the brightest bunch.

    Maybe the mall should start towing the idiots still dumb enough to be driving around with "Bush/Cheney '04" stickers on their jalopies. My keying their car obviously isn't getting the message across...;)



    PS....maybe the mall should start kicking out fat chicks who wear tight clothing also. Now that's something everyone can agree on...

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2457822]Nothing to do with free speech...just utterly retarded to arrest an 80 year old guy in a wheelchair. But I suppose there is a reason they are mall cops...not the brightest bunch.

    Maybe the mall should start towing the idiots still dumb enough to be driving around with "Bush/Cheney '04" stickers on their jalopies. My keying their car obviously isn't getting the message across...;)



    PS....maybe the mall should start kicking out fat chicks who wear tight clothing also. Now that's something everyone can agree on...[/QUOTE]

    I could get on board with a muffin-top ban.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2457786]It has [B]everything [/B]to do with the constitution. Its what protects us from evolving into a fascist society.[/QUOTE]

    It has nothing to do with free speech because the man was protesting on someone else's property. A shopping mall is not public property. If they don't want someone protesting on their property they have every right to have him removed.

    Imagine you own a business and I enter your store with a shirt on that has racial epithets on it. If you feel that the shirt offends your patrons and is harming your business, then I'd have no right whatsoever to argue with you if you ask me to leave or turn the shirt inside out.

    If the man was protesting on a street corner or a public park, [I]then[/I] it would be a free speech issue.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2457780][url]http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html[/url]

    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12)

    Article [I.] (See Note 13)
    [B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Right. Unless the part about Congress making a law was left out of your article, again, what does this specific arrest have to do with the Constitution or this specific amendment? You do understand what the words "congress" and "law" mean, right? Also, you are aware that a mall is private property and to deny the mall the right to express itself as it sees fit would also, by your own "logic" be an abridgment of free speech? Free speech applies to loiterers with liberal T-shirts but not to property owners?

    This arrest may or may not be fair or a wise decision by the mall, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution. Not only are you a climate scientist, but you're a Constitutional law expert too boot. Fascinating!

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    4,285
    [QUOTE=OrangeJet;2457834]I could get on board with a muffin-top ban.[/QUOTE]

    LOL. I'm with you, where do I sign?!

    Once when I was a teenager, mall security told myself and three friends that it was against the rules to hang out in "groups". I guess my constitutional right to assemble was violated?
    Last edited by Big L; 03-31-2008 at 01:40 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us