|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Sept 28, 2020 21:51:36 GMT
As used in this section, “place of public amusement” means a stadium, theater, or other facility, whether licensed or not, at which a live performance, sporting event, or other activity takes place for entertainment of the public and to which access is made available to the public, regardless of whether admission is charged.She was at a high school football game. In a high school stadium. CHECK.No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly enter or remain on any restricted portion of a place of public amusement and, as a result of that conduct, interrupt or cause the delay of the live performance, sporting event, or other activity taking place at the place of public amusement after a printed written notice has been given as provided in division (D)(1) of this section that the general public is restricted from access to that restricted portion of the place of public amusement. A restricted portion of a place of public amusement may include, but is not limited to, a playing field, an athletic surface, or a stage located at the place of public amusement.High school football stadium. CHECK Notice has been given that the general public is restricted from access to a portion of a place of public amusement if a printed written notice of the restricted access has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the entrance to that portion of the place of public amusement. If a printed written notice is posted or exhibited as described in this division regarding a portion of a place of public amusement, in addition to that posting or exhibition, notice that the general public is restricted from access to that portion of the place of public amusement also may be given, but is not required to be given, by either of the following means:
(a) By notifying the person personally, either orally or in writing, that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted;
(b) By broadcasting over the public address system of the place of public amusement an oral warning that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted.The rules were made public, with the public and the student body informed before the sporting event took place. Not only that, the cop verbally informed her about the mask rule and gave her the option to either wear a mask or leave the stadium. She had a mask in her pocket, but chose not to wear it. She could have left the stadium, but she chose not to. CHECK I think she picked a stupid hill to die on. Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of criminal trespass on a place of public amusement, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(2) In addition to any jail term, fine, or other sentence, penalty, or sanction it imposes upon the offender pursuant to division (E)(1) of this section, a court may require an offender who violates this section to perform not less than thirty and not more than one hundred twenty hours of supervised community service work.CHECKMATE Again, if one feels strongly about wearing a mask to a public sporting event, by all means raise cain with the local school board and any elected official that will listen to you. But one is not going to win that fight sitting on a football stadium bleacher. What I quoted, was the law as it pertains to her charge. The only thing I think she can squawk about, is whether the cop used excessive force in arresting her. I don't think his actions rise to that level. All of that is correct. The one piece missing was the mask policy that she was accused of violating, thereby making the trespass order valid. I looked that up and the OHSAA policy they cited does NOT make it mandatory that spectators wear masks. It ASKS them to do so. The cop was misinformed about the policy in stadiums and proceeded to escalate the charge to criminal trespass. THAT'S why they can't and won't charge her with the supposed original violation of "not wearing a mask". The school DOES have a policy to wear one "on school property" which would have included the stadium had they NOT referenced the OHSAA policy as the one they intended to be enforced. It was understood when they passed this that outdoor stadiums were different than indoor classroom "property". |
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Sept 28, 2020 21:53:53 GMT
You got to start from the beginning it began with the mask. Technically since it was not a violation of a law the cop should of walked. His job is once again not enforcement of policy/ rules but laws that are written. No, don't dance. I'm going to stipulate that the cop was within his scope of authority to arrest her. Period. End of discussion on the mask point. Now, if that be the case (and I do think it is), what is the difference between her disobeying a legal order from an officer of the court and an antifa thug on the street disobeying a lawful order from a duly sworn officer of the court? It WASN'T a legal order (see above) so the answer to your question...... ...is absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Sept 28, 2020 21:59:00 GMT
So you don't know if the Verizon employee who went inside called the cops or authorized them to ask you to leave? You're depending on some guy on the phone who can't know much of anything about the situation in real time. For them to ask you to leave illegally, they must be breaking a law. Which one? Never mind, it doesn't matter. How did you profit from this encounter? I'm guessing it has something to do with truth, justice, and the American way. LOL, keep tilting at that windmill, Senor Quixote, for the windmill must be defeated if we are to survive. No, I actually DO know that the employees DIDN'T call the cops and the guy on the phone made it explicitly clear that none of the security ANY Verizon store had the authority to override the employees at the store. Like I said, I was talking to corporate HQ at the time, not customer service. |
|
|
|
Post by DEKE on Sept 28, 2020 22:08:47 GMT
And you DO know this how, Senor Quixote?
|
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Sept 29, 2020 1:02:46 GMT
And you DO know this how, Senor Quixote? Because I was there and witnessed the whole event. |
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Sept 29, 2020 1:19:32 GMT
For them to ask you to leave illegally, they must be breaking a law. Which one? Never mind, it doesn't matter. How did you profit from this encounter? I'm guessing it has something to do with truth, justice, and the American way. . I guess the law that was broken was civil rights violation, interfering with someone's right to travel freely and conduct business/commerce. As for what did I profit from it? Nothing. He cost me a couple hours of my time and since I had stopped on my way to my next customer's job, it also cost me money. The one positive outcome was I got to talk to the police chief for about half an hour and had wanted to meet him for several years. He was confident that I was never in danger of being arrested for such a petty thing, but I'm pretty sure he would have if I hadn't left when I did. |
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 1:31:52 GMT
No, don't dance. I'm going to stipulate that the cop was within his scope of authority to arrest her. Period. End of discussion on the mask point. Now, if that be the case (and I do think it is), what is the difference between her disobeying a legal order from an officer of the court and an antifa thug on the street disobeying a lawful order from a duly sworn officer of the court? It WASN'T a legal order (see above) so the answer to your question...... ...is absolutely nothing. Problem with reading comprehension? Look at what I wrote. We're arguing a much more basic aspect of society than a mask policy. Now, if that be the case (and I do think it is), what is the difference between her disobeying a legal order from an officer of the court and an antifa thug on the street disobeying a lawful order from a duly sworn officer of the court? |
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 29, 2020 1:43:49 GMT
Key word is lawful order. In the Ohio case there was no lawful reason for the cop to even approach the woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 1:44:19 GMT
As used in this section, “place of public amusement” means a stadium, theater, or other facility, whether licensed or not, at which a live performance, sporting event, or other activity takes place for entertainment of the public and to which access is made available to the public, regardless of whether admission is charged.She was at a high school football game. In a high school stadium. CHECK.No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly enter or remain on any restricted portion of a place of public amusement and, as a result of that conduct, interrupt or cause the delay of the live performance, sporting event, or other activity taking place at the place of public amusement after a printed written notice has been given as provided in division (D)(1) of this section that the general public is restricted from access to that restricted portion of the place of public amusement. A restricted portion of a place of public amusement may include, but is not limited to, a playing field, an athletic surface, or a stage located at the place of public amusement.High school football stadium. CHECK Notice has been given that the general public is restricted from access to a portion of a place of public amusement if a printed written notice of the restricted access has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the entrance to that portion of the place of public amusement. If a printed written notice is posted or exhibited as described in this division regarding a portion of a place of public amusement, in addition to that posting or exhibition, notice that the general public is restricted from access to that portion of the place of public amusement also may be given, but is not required to be given, by either of the following means:
(a) By notifying the person personally, either orally or in writing, that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted;
(b) By broadcasting over the public address system of the place of public amusement an oral warning that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted.The rules were made public, with the public and the student body informed before the sporting event took place. Not only that, the cop verbally informed her about the mask rule and gave her the option to either wear a mask or leave the stadium. She had a mask in her pocket, but chose not to wear it. She could have left the stadium, but she chose not to. CHECK I think she picked a stupid hill to die on. Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of criminal trespass on a place of public amusement, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(2) In addition to any jail term, fine, or other sentence, penalty, or sanction it imposes upon the offender pursuant to division (E)(1) of this section, a court may require an offender who violates this section to perform not less than thirty and not more than one hundred twenty hours of supervised community service work.CHECKMATE Again, if one feels strongly about wearing a mask to a public sporting event, by all means raise cain with the local school board and any elected official that will listen to you. But one is not going to win that fight sitting on a football stadium bleacher. What I quoted, was the law as it pertains to her charge. The only thing I think she can squawk about, is whether the cop used excessive force in arresting her. I don't think his actions rise to that level. All of that is correct. The one piece missing was the mask policy that she was accused of violating, thereby making the trespass order valid. I looked that up and the OHSAA policy they cited does NOT make it mandatory that spectators wear masks. It ASKS them to do so. The cop was misinformed about the policy in stadiums and proceeded to escalate the charge to criminal trespass. THAT'S why they can't and won't charge her with the supposed original violation of "not wearing a mask". The school DOES have a policy to wear one "on school property" which would have included the stadium had they NOT referenced the OHSAA policy as the one they intended to be enforced. It was understood when they passed this that outdoor stadiums were different than indoor classroom "property". I just read the actual order. Spectators are required to wear masks at all times, with few exceptions. I went to a country school, but I think required means something that must be done. I have a bit of trouble linking pdf's with this tablet, so I'll include a news article with a link to the rules, for your reading pleasure. www.sidneydailynews.com/sports/183357/state-order-released-with-details-on-crowd-restrictions |
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 1:45:53 GMT
Therefore, if masks were required, does that mean the cop was within his scope of authority?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 1:49:07 GMT
Now, could you please link your cite, where spectators are not required to wear masks?
|
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 29, 2020 1:58:41 GMT
Is required a law if so quote the Ohio statute
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 2:05:58 GMT
Is required a law if so quote the Ohio statute I gave you a link to a website which contains a pdf of the rules as issued by the authorities in Ohio. Now, you're going to make the same it's a rule, not a law argument that you have made multiple times. I've tried to explain, as has Deke, how rules and policies must be followed in this case or they can trigger actions which result in arrests under Ohio law. I've also given you a link to the Ohio law for criminal trespass. Lastly, this thread is starting to remind me of an old saying... You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. You can, however, sit on his head until he drowns.😄 |
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 29, 2020 2:22:53 GMT
Well it’s not my fault people don’t understand law verve rules. In the state of Ohio if it doesn’t have a ORS followed by a number it is not enforceable. Rules can’t be used to build a case for a code violation.
As to the horse drinking if anyone would read what the woman’s lawyer said that the school had not bothered to update the rules and the cop never ever checked them either. But again any one can make any post rules but when there is no legal code to back it up it is non enforceable.
Anyone ever check the YouTube videos of people that video public offices? Many times they are arrested an went it is all said and done the City pays out tons for not knowing the law or more so not caring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 29, 2020 2:49:02 GMT
Yes, there are occasional cases where an arrest is erroneous and damages are awarded. They call that news, because it is not the norm. It is a rarity.
If the rule was in place and the spectator broke the rule, then the subsequent arrest for trespass was valid. As an example...
Think about a school board meeting, where public comments are allowed. The rule is that three minutes are allowed per person, subject to a limit of the persons. One of the audience gives their public comment and is gaveled down, because they exceed their allotted time. They refuse to yield and keep reading comments they have written down.
At that point, the chair orders the person to be removed. The cop posted to the meeting, angles over to the speaking person and asks them to leave the room. They refuse. Viciferously. The cop then arrests them for criminal trespass.
Or think of a business that has a policy that a terminated employee just leave immediately. An employee that has just been terminated refuses to leave the public area of the building. The cops are called and arrest the former employee for trespassing..
|
|
