Arrested at Mitt Romney Campaign's Request

[crimresearch]

Post #9: Lamarche told BuzzFeed.com that Bieber “hadn’t done anything,” according to a story published by that Web site Thursday. Lamarche added that it was “The staff’s word against his,” when asked why Bieber was arrested.


__________________________________________________________
Spindrift Post #31:
"The officer said ""It's the staff's word against his". So while the officer may have felt
that Bieber didn't do anything worth being arrested for, there was a complaint.

I can't find anything that has a direct quote from the officer saying Bieber "hadn't done
anything" in context. "
____________________________________________________________________


******************************************************
Spindrift Post #38:

"What words did I ignore?"
******************************************************

Ahhh, so you are trolling. buh-bye.

 

[Spindrift]

Post #9: Lamarche told BuzzFeed.com that Bieber “hadn’t done anything,” according to a story published by that Web site Thursday. Lamarche added that it was “The staff’s word against his,” when asked why Bieber was arrested.


__________________________________________________________
Spindrift Post #31:
"The officer said ""It's the staff's word against his". So while the officer may have felt
that Bieber didn't do anything worth being arrested for, there was a complaint.

I can't find anything that has a direct quote from the officer saying Bieber "hadn't done
anything" in context. "
____________________________________________________________________


******************************************************
Spindrift Post #38:

"What words did I ignore?"
******************************************************

Ahhh, so you are trolling. buh-bye.

I'm not ignoring anything.

I see a sound bite: "hadn't done anything". I'd like to see the entire quote that includes that sound bite. Without the context, there is no way to determine what he meant when he used those words. Maybe the officer did mean, "Bieber hadn't done anything to justify being arrested." He may have also said "Bieber hadn't done anything until he was outside and refused to leave the premises."

It's like quoting Romney's "I like to fire people" gaffe. He said that but that sound bite alone is totally out of context.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Police arrest and charge activist.

Even if he is an activist, I'm not comfortable with police arresting someone because he is an activist.

And I'm certainly not comfortable with police arresting someone at the direction of their private security client.

Again, they are certainly allowed to bounce unwanted guests at the direction of their client, but for them to make an arrest, it has to be based on a crime they themselves witnessed. A "complaint" by their client is not sufficient.

(I know this from personal experience. If I complain that someone assaulted me, and the police have no other evidence but my word against the conflicting word of the other party, they will not make an arrest.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not ignoring anything.

I see a sound bite: "hadn't done anything". I'd like to see the entire quote that includes that sound bite. Without the context, there is no way to determine what he meant when he used those words. Maybe the officer did mean, "Bieber hadn't done anything to justify being arrested." He may have also said "Bieber hadn't done anything until he was outside and refused to leave the premises."

It's like quoting Romney's "I like to fire people" gaffe. He said that but that sound bite alone is totally out of context.

I understand your skepticism, but since that is exactly the context the partial quote was given in the news article, it's reasonable to provisionally accept that it is correct. (If and only if enough conflicting evidence comes to light would I change positions and accept that we took this out of context.)

I see no reason to think that the officer's statement was misrepresented as you are hypothesizing.

It sounds to me like the officer agreed that Bieber had done nothing to merit arrest and was only being arrested on the say-so of the client.

 

[Nova Land]

I see no reason to think that the officer's statement was misrepresented...

It sounds to me like the officer agreed that Bieber had done nothing to merit arrest and was only being arrested on the say-so of the client.

I basically agree with you, but have some slight quibbles:

I agree with you that it sounds (from the brief quoted snippet) as if the officer is saying he had not seen Bieber doing anything to merit arrest prior to being confronted by the police and asked to leave.

But Bieber was not arrested on the say-so of the client; he was asked to leave on the say-so of the client. He was arrested because, even though he had left the immediate premises of Romney's campaign event, he did not leave the area of the event and apparently was still on private property.

Bieber says (and there is no evidence to raise doubt about this) that he had not been part of a protest, which the police said was the reason the Romney people wanted him off the premises. Given that, his actions in attempting to find a way to clear up the misunderstanding seem sensible and reasonable.

There is no evidence that his attempts to talk to the police were boisterous, threatening, or in any other way out of line -- apart from the fact they weren't willing to talk to him or help clear up the situation. Essentially he was arrested for attempting to talk to the police longer than they were willing to talk.

 

[crimresearch]

"...even though he had left the immediate premises of Romney's campaign event, he did not leave the area of the event and apparently was still on private property."

Again, going strictly on what has been posted, he went where the police told him to go. That isn't refusing to leave, that is compliance.

Still not adding up.

Things that would make more sense out of this, like a restraining or tresspass order, or additional comments from the police, like 'We're done talking to you, get off the property now!' aren't in the narrative.

 

[stilicho]

Irrelevant even if true.

I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think you're reading between the lines. I think you are inventing a scenario. Mr. Bieber didn't create a disturbance nor did he refuse to leave. He left the building voluntarily with the police officer who has stated that he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Except he doesn't appear to be an activist, just a citizen attempting to participate in our democratic election process and learn more about the men who are campaigning for president. Besides, even if he was an activist, there's nothing wrong with that nor is it cause for arrest.

Or maybe he fails as an activist because he isn't one.

Beth, listen, practically the only information we have about this incident is from the perpetrator and repeated three times on his own blog. The only newspaper report on the incident was from the Nashua Telegraph, which has a circulation of about 27,000. This isn't the New York Times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Telegraph_(Nashua)

The front page stories are often about lost kittens.

Rousting an innocent participant from a whistle stop for being polite and "participat[ing] in our democratic process", as Bieber explains, and which you embellished based on your own fundamental beliefs, would be international news, with far-reaching implications for Romney's candidacy. Instead, it's four self-serving blog posts, a mild local newspaper report, a HuffPo article using no credible sources, and a JREF thread with a poll that doesn't include the obvious option.

Let's wait to see the result of his arraignment. Have you discovered exactly what he was charged with yet?

 

[Brainster]

Things that would make more sense out of this, like a restraining or tresspass order, or additional comments from the police, like 'We're done talking to you, get off the property now!' aren't in the narrative.

Did you miss this?

Could I speak to someone from the campaign to clear this up? No. I’d have to leave immediately.

(Italics in original)

And this?

I either had to leave the company’s property or face charges for criminal trespass.

I see at least two warnings there.

 

[stilicho]

Even if he is an activist, I'm not comfortable with police arresting someone because he is an activist.

And I'm certainly not comfortable with police arresting someone at the direction of their private security client.

Again, they are certainly allowed to bounce unwanted guests at the direction of their client, but for them to make an arrest, it has to be based on a crime they themselves witnessed. A "complaint" by their client is not sufficient.

(I know this from personal experience. If I complain that someone assaulted me, and the police have no other evidence but my word against the conflicting word of the other party, they will not make an arrest.)

Actually it happens all the time and I'll bet you've even witnessed it.

Sports teams often pay for police officers to attend their events. These officers are enabled to remove individuals from the premises and to arrest and charge them if required.

The individuals who are thusly removed are often identified by staff and the officers will act on that information.

We don't know exactly what Bieber was doing that caused him to be removed from the event or what caused him to later be arrested. We will have to wait for the case to be heard at court to learn that. Right now it's Bieber's word against the reality that he was arrested. I can make several educated guesses as to why he isn't explaining the full story and you probably can too.

 

[crimresearch]

Did you miss this?


(Italics in original)

And this?


I see at least two warnings there.

And I see you babbling nonsense that in no way disproves my suspicion that we aren't getting the whole story.

 

[stilicho]

And I see you babbling nonsense that in no way disproves my suspicion that we aren't getting the whole story.

Is there a "whole story"? So far it's been four blog posts by the perpetrator, a HuffPo story with no credible sources, a small New Hampshire paper with a circulation of 27,000 (that features lost kittens as cover stories), and a JREF poll with a lot of posturing.

Do you have anything substantial?

 

[Dancing David]

This is a toughie, if it was a private event and invitation only then I can see the removal. If it was an open event, and there was a general invitation to the public then it is questionable.

 

[Roadtoad]

The letter doesn't say anything vaguely resembling that.

It says he was removed and then arrested on 3rd hand claims about a misdemeanor that allegedly occured some other place and time, and not witnessed by the police.

If other people were there and they were behaving no differently than him, then that's pretty questionable. Unless the rally was by invitation only, it doesn't seem legal (to me) to arrest specific people without explaining to them what they've done. You could use this to make racial discrimination or any other kind of prejudicial discrimination.

So if what the blogger says is true (and I have no confirmation by outside sources) then it is, at the very least, a very black eye for Romney if it gets widespread attention.

Seems to me we've been given a good reason to NOT vote for Romney.

 

[AlBell]

Obama is the good reason to vote for Romney, assuming Romney is nominated.

And still no facts on the arrest this thread is discussing.

 

[crimresearch]

"Is there a "whole story"? So far it's been four blog posts by the perpetrator, a HuffPo story with no credible sources, a small New Hampshire paper with a circulation of 27,000 (that features lost kittens as cover stories), and a JREF poll with a lot of posturing.

Do you have anything substantial? "



What is substantial about you copying what I've already said point for point?


Do you have anything either correct or useful regarding the legal questions I raised, *or* the fact that I already pointed out more than once, that all we have to go on is the narrative from Beiber and an inconclusive news echo?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Bieber was not arrested on the say-so of the client;
<snip>

Bieber says (and there is no evidence to raise doubt about this) that he had not been part of a protest, which the police said was the reason the Romney people wanted him off the premises. Given that, his actions in attempting to find a way to clear up the misunderstanding seem sensible and reasonable.

There is no evidence that his attempts to talk to the police were boisterous, threatening, or in any other way out of line -- apart from the fact they weren't willing to talk to him or help clear up the situation. Essentially he was arrested for attempting to talk to the police longer than they were willing to talk.

It still sounds to me like he was arrested at the behest of the client.

I already proffered the argument you're making (see earlier in the thread) which attempts to distinguish between relying on the client's word to bounce the guy and then arresting him because he refused to leave. I don't find it very compelling. At best you come up with what you said: he tried to reason with the police for too long, even though the officer's account of the exchange agrees with Bieber's (there was no creating a disturbance, for example).

BTW, they could have physically removed him from the property without actually arresting him (that is, throwing him in jail for some few hours). Bouncers do that sort of thing all the time. Since they were acting at the client's request, they would have done well to stay in their role of private security unless or until they witnessed something that required police powers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sports teams often pay for police officers to attend their events. These officers are enabled to remove individuals from the premises and to arrest and charge them if required.

Removing them and arresting them are two very different things.

[ETA: And see my reply to Dancing David's comment 2 posts below. Police can't remove someone from a sports event based on the say so of the client alone. If they lack the authority to remove the guy, they certainly lack the authority to arrest him for his refusal to leave. Remember, the officer's statement agreed that Bieber had done nothing wrong. The people you're talking about at a sports event had to have done something wrong to be removed and possibly arrested.]

Right now it's Bieber's word against the reality that he was arrested.

We have no comment from Romney's campaign (even though the news article I cited contacted them for comment). We have a very brief statement from the officer that seems to agree with Bieber's account (at least at to the events in question--the officer seemed willing to believe his client rather than Bieber about the past incident).

My position has been that the event at least warrants an explanation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And still no facts on the arrest this thread is discussing.

I cited a news story earlier in the thread. We know he was arrested and spent several hours in jail. Nothing the police officer said contradicted Bieber's account.

How is that "no facts"?

The Romney campaign's decision to refuse to comment on the incident is itself problematic, IMO.

 

[crimresearch]

It still sounds to me like he was arrested at the behest of the client.

I already proffered the argument you're making (see earlier in the thread) which attempts to distinguish between relying on the client's word to bounce the guy and then arresting him because he refused to leave. I don't find it very compelling. At best you come up with what you said: he tried to reason with the police for too long, even though the officer's account of the exchange agrees with Bieber's (there was no creating a disturbance, for example).

BTW, they could have physically removed him from the property without actually arresting him (that is, throwing him in jail for some few hours). Bouncers do that sort of thing all the time. Since they were acting at the client's request, they would have done well to stay in their role of private security unless or until they witnessed something that required police powers.

And IIRC, New Hampshire has a specific proviso that such situations can be handled with a summons in lieu of arrest... adding to the apparent disconnect.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And IIRC, New Hampshire has a specific proviso that such situations can be handled with a summons in lieu of arrest... adding to the apparent disconnect.

Although I could see where that would be ineffective if the purpose is to remove him from the premises. But again, they could have actually removed him. (No arrest; no citation.)

At any rate, I think the police department involved and the Romney campaign at least have to give an accounting of what happened. If events are somehow different than as Bieber described them, let them tell their side. (I'd also be curious as to whether any charges were filed. I suspect not. I think the arrest and jailing was just an extension of removing him at the request of the client. I don't think the city/state had any interest whatsoever in it--such as preserving the peace.)