Dont bark orders at me.
Just like this guy, imagine the gall he had to think he had the right to be at his job just because the building owner wanted him there.
I'll take that as an admission that you have no explanation for the irregularities of the mayor's arrest.
I made no claim that the mayor was intending to conduct a construction inspection. That's what you're trying to turn it into, which makes it a straw man.
You're simply repeating Alina Habba's claim, for which there is no evidence. You insinuate that the evidence might be found in unedited video of the event. Provide that evidence.
He doesn't work at the ICE facility. He has no right or business being there. He was asked to leave and refused, so he was arrested.
Funny you changed your story from him being peaceably escorted off the property to refusing, so which is it and why are you moving the goalposts now?
The full report is available here (register with email required) https://www.niradata.com/dpi
Video shows that ICE had to ask him multiple times to leave. You're only supposed to be asked once to avoid being charged with trespassing.
Link to the video.
So why was he not charged under the federal trespassing statute that has the higher scienter requirement, if you believe that the mayor's behavior shows an intent to trespass?
Its in post 15,772.
If that is the case why did ICE feel the need to lie about it? Remember we know they lied by making up stuff about charging gates that your video shows never happened.
Irrelevent to the charges. All he has to do is be on property where he does not belong, be asked to leave and refuse to leave, and the trespassing charge is warranted.
That's the video you originally told us was evidence of the mayor leaving peaceably, but now are trying to claim was edited ostensibly to leave out more incriminating behavior. You seem to be trying to cobble up a new law that requires the mayor to have behaved differently than he did.
False. If what Alina Habba claimed was true in her tweet that you seem to be parroting, then he would have been liable under the federal trespass law which requires scienter. Instead he was charged only with misdemeanor trespass under state law, which does not require scienter. It is not irrelevant to the charges.
Yea but that is fine, see all those people from jan 6 who were places they weren't supposed to be to kidnap and murder people who are heroes.
He finally left after multiple warnings. He can still be arrested for refusing to leave after the first warning.
The Jan 6th insurrection has nothing to do with this immediate debate. Please dont derail the discussion.
Where the first warning just to him or where they illegally barring access to the representatives who should also be charged then with trespassing even though they had a legal right to be there.
Your argument is based on what you think constitutes trespassing under the law. It's not off-topic to bring up examples of alleged trespassing that don't comport with your belief and ask you to reconcile them. In any case, you not a moderator. If you believe a post is off-topic, report it for moderation.
If you believe you have a right to enter by virtue of your legal authority as an officer of the city, you are not required simply to leave when challenged. It remains potentially chargeable under state law, which has not scienter requirement. You're alleging scienter, and this was expressly claimed by Alina Habba informally. Yet he was not charged under federal law, even though the charging officer alleged informally that she could have.
The crowd is irrelevant.
