California Laws - Trespassing, Arrest et al If a misdemeanor was committed in the presence of a peace officer, no citizen's arrest is needed. We should wait for the facts though. Even then, this ALMOST sounds like "contempt of cop." Contempt of cop is not a crime. Basically if a cop asks you to do something and you refuse to do it even if you have a legal right to refuse, that makes you contemptuous toward the cop. This pisses off emotionally immature cops. So, they find something and anything to retaliate because they feel disrespected in some way. Sad to say this happens a lot but mainly with emotionally immature cops. It is possible that this cop felt disrespected, so he used possible an obscure law or ordinance to "get back at them." We need the facts!
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! A citizen's arrest is a formal arrest by a citizen has no official government authority to make such an arrest as an agent of the government. The California Penal Code gives any citizen the right to make a citizen's arrest of another citizen in three alternative situations: A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence. The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence. A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it. A PUBLIC OFFENSE COMMITTED???!
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! hai forseti, can we do citizen's arrests for things like having e-meters without the mandatory federal warning on the bottom and shit like that? cuz that would be fucking hilarious.
Re: Okay here is what I saw The only one I've made out so far is this... Intentional Interference with the Public or Public Employees California Penal Code § 602.1. (a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine. (b) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business carried on by the employees of a public agency open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or those persons there to transact business with the public agency, and who refuses to leave the premises of the public agency after being requested to leave by the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine. (c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons: (1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law. (2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution. (d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the application of any other law. Edit: Including the one at the bottom of the page... Freeways and Expressways: Use Restrictions California VEHICLE Code, § 21960: (a) The Department of Transportation and local authorities, by order, ordinance, or resolution, with respect to freeways, expressways, or designated portions thereof under their respective jurisdictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians, bicycles or other nonmotorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter. A prohibition or restriction pertaining to bicycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized scooters shall be deemed to include motorized bicycles; and no person may operate a motorized bicycle wherever that prohibition or restriction is in force. Notwithstanding any provisions of any order, ordinance, or resolution to the contrary, the driver or passengers of a disabled vehicle stopped on a freeway or expressway may walk to the nearest exit, in either direction, on that side of the freeway or expressway upon which the vehicle is disabled, from which telephone or motor vehicle repair services are available. (b) The prohibitory regulation authorized by subdivision (a) shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon any freeway or expressway and the approaches thereto. If any portion of a county freeway or expressway is contained within the limits of a city within the county, the county may erect signs on that portion as required under this subdivision if the ordinance has been approved by the city pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1730 of the Streets and Highways Code. (c) No ordinance or resolution of local authorities shall apply to any state highway until the proposed ordinance or resolution has been presented to, and approved in writing by, the Department of Transportation. (d) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section on or after January 1, 2005, to prohibit pedestrian access to a county freeway or expressway shall not be effective unless it is supported by a finding by the local authority that the freeway or expressway does not have pedestrian facilities and pedestrian use would pose a safety risk to the pedestrian.
Re: Okay here is what I saw Nope can't see those provisions applying. But I'd love the CoS to try for (a)
Re: Okay here is what I saw Their business isn't open to the public. It will be interesting to see if they used that statute to demand a citizens arrest.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! This is key: So not only will they have to prove that Mark Bunker personally prevented customers from entering Golden Era Productions but that he was also asked to stop by the owner or a cop and then refused to do so. Unlikely.
Re: Okay here is what I saw They'll say it is. Its a polling place for freak's sake. And they'll say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. They always try and have it both ways. But its obvious they are freaking out, so they will probably shit AND go blind. Just to be on the safe side.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! First, they have to get over the hurdle that they are open to the public.
Re: Okay here is what I saw Look to see if if the words are defined in a definition area of the code.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Yeah I would spend much time on those statutory provisions.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! California Civil Code 52.3. (a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California. (b) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice of conduct specified in subdivision (a), whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! And the Attorney General would only get involved it there was pressure from the citizens regarding such an act. Seems like IA needs to get involved there as to why the police are so zealous arresting non-violent, law abiding protesters.
Re: Dateline: That little guard shack that looks like an International House of Panca So it WAS on that Scilon's sheet: That's awesome, because as others have pointed out, there's this bit:
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! TITLE 18> PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! ^^^^^ This investigation with multiple incidents all seemingly related.
Re: Dateline: That little guard shack that looks like an International House of Panca I'd more call it erring on the side of corruption. You think they'd arrest a cultist on the say-so of a critic for "caution?" More like they'd refuse to even take a complaint if you had the cultist on videotape flat-out committing a crime. In that case, they wouldn't even look at it. There is nothing "cautious" about making a blatantly illegal arrest for "trespassing" on public property. Caution does not require breaking the law and perpetrating a fraudulent arrest. An end needs to be put to this shit. And luckily, this set of facts is great. If Graham has been looking for something to really sink his teeth into, this is it. Personally, I think this case represents a clear violation of constitutional rights under federal law. Specifically: US CODE: Title 42,1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Of course, this case may be so juicy that it is an opportunity to educate the local courts. The Marks were clearly deprived of their constitutional rights, under state and federal constitutional law, and there's really no justification for this. As great as the facts are, the defendants are even better. Unlike AO, neither of these guys are going to sabotage their own case with idiocy. These corrupt cops are going to have a really hard time giving any credible answer as to why they arrested these guys. Also: Problem with this is it's a criminal statute. The FBI is simply not going to get involved. 42 USC 1983 is a federal civil rights statute allowing for federal lawsuits for constitutional rights violations, and is the relevant statute for when, as here, a constitutional tort has been committed.
Re: Okay here is what I saw "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC," Not sure how "public" is applied in California. The gate shack with the police car blocking the entrance doesn't look very "public" to me. May have fallen to the lesser standard of "open for public inquiry". Like you could drive up and ask if TD was available to give you that free bj he promised you. Deal's a deal. Just making "public inquiry" of same. If this is the case...each protester should inquire at the gate shack , "Is Mr Hubbard available for a discussion today?". "I'd like to chat with Davey M. Is he available at this time?" Public? I gotcher public swingin' right here.
Re: Okay here is what I saw You might have Danny coming out of the shack announcing CITIZENS ARREST as you approach the shack to ask a question. In the AGP video, the guard came out and announced that AGP was trespassing. Once you know the exact code that was used to arrest the two Marks you can use it in your favor if that was the code they cited. It is open to the public and I am coming to inquire if Tommy Davis is available today. HAHAHAHAHA what's the law in California for allowing an attorney to be present while you are being arrested. Can they keep Graham away from the perp as he is being handcuffed in front of the entry? Surely the police are not so stupid as to have forgotten to give the Miranda warning.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! I have googled ... but i still cannot find out why/how this is classed as a citizens arrest when it was a police officer - everything i can find suggests that it is only a citizens arrest when an arrest is made by a person who does not normally have powers of arrest - did the scilons at any stage before the police arrive say "i arrest you?" - usfags or lawfags please help explain this - thanks
Re: Okay here is what I saw This specific location is either PUBLIC or PRIVATE. It can Not be both. Are there any posted business hours? >>the guard came out and announced that AGP was trespassing. Correct response is "blahblahblah public inquiry blahblah". If they are "public". Any person can make inquiry. Ask if you can join the RPF for the weekend. Ask for a tour of the sniper's nest. Ask to use the bathroom. Ask to play with Danny's personal security equipment. Ask Ms Wutzhercunt for a date. Ask if they have Xenu's cell phone number. Ask if they have mocked-up any past lives. Ask if it is true that TC balls are available for public viewing. Ask if they have any of LaffyRon's Visterol left over. Ask *any* "legitimate" question (not viewed as harassing). either/neither. They would have to double the size of the gate shack just to be able to leagally post all the restrictions to their "public" place of 'legal' business. ...and ya made me type all CAPS...yaprickya
Re: Okay here is what I saw police are allowed to do the booking with out an attorney... failure to mirandize someone only prevents statements made by perp from being used in court..
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! The only interpretation I can come up with that makes any sense is that anyone can make a citizen's arrest when it makes sense to him or herself--like he or she sees a felony being committed, and acts to arrest the perpetrator before the police arrive. The police eventually show up, and process the arrest properly. The catch is that the citizen is subject to liability laws and prosecution for false arrest, so if the arrestee is obviously not committing a felony, or the police are right there standing next to you, the arrester will be in deep doo-doo. It shows unequivocally that the police are in the scientologists little pockets; it's truly amazing. If the police are unwilling to make the arrest (and this was obviously not a crime of any sort), then the citizen should not be making the arrest. Citizens arrest are for extreme and obvious cases.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! this is interesting.. --------- In addition, sworn officers are no longer required to take custody of persons arrested under CPC 837, ---------
Re: Okay here is what I saw Yes, but that doesn't mean that was the code used for the arrest..it means the paper was in her hands...we need to know what statute was actually violated according to Scientology as the basis for the arrest.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! i think.. agp posted code.. a regular arrest.. is when a police officer notices someone violating the law or has discovered through other means that there is reason to believe someone has violated the law.. and he signs the affidavits and paperwork etc.. testifying to that.. a citizens arrest on the other hand, the police do not make sworn statement that they believe a crime has been committed a private citizen does.. the police being part of the gov't have governmental immunity from lawsuits except in extreme cases, while a private citizen does not...
Re: Okay here is what I saw Plenty cool. Person making false arrest leading to false imprisonment is proven to have correct documents in her hot little hand. Who gave them to her? CA Codes (pen:182-185) Que: Disco Inferno to my suprise 100 stories high you GO tina. You go girl
Re: Okay here is what I saw The next video of AGP will be him approaching the guard shack and saying, I hear you are open to the public. Can I have a tour?...as Danny goes off the deep end screaming he is under arrest.
Re: Okay here is what I saw It was. AGP stated the precise provision. It was one of those in the photos. See OP for details.
Re: Okay here is what I saw Cool. Now someone with balls of steel can take the relevant code and say, I hear you are now open to the public..I would like a tour.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! I believe that even "public" businesses still retain the right to "refuse service to anyone" (except for constitutionally protected rights/classes). But I reserve the right to be completely wrong, and exercise it frequently.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Yes, a public business can ask you to leave. But since they are open to the public AGP should be able to go to the shack and ask for a tour without being arrested.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Oh, it doesn't really matter what he says. I just used tour as an example. He could go up and ask if Tommy Davis is available today. He would like to ask him a question. Personally, I would go up and ask if Tommy Davis was available because I saw him on TV saying that the belief in XENU was just silly and I think he might like to see some writings by LRH..;-) Then I would ask if I could just leave them there for Tommy. It doesn't matter what he asks.... he will be denied. Everyone going out to Gold Base should go ask the guard shack a question at least once...but have the statute ready indicating they have admitted they are open to the public. Let's see if they are really open to the public. Of course, everyone going up to that guard shack may be arrested.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Gold used to give public tours on Sunday afternoons. I went twice. The first time there was another couple and me. The 2nd time it was just me and Muriel Dufresne. I don't know when they quit doing this but I think I went both times in thear early 1990s.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Make a citizen's arrest. CA Penal 245 (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. ...or instrument other than a firearm or by ANY MEANS OF FORCE broken eardrums/permanently impaired hearing=great bodily injury probably why they don't do it anymore.
Re: MARK BUNKER AND MARK LOWELL ARRESTED AT GOLD! Apparently, the cop was lying. Legal Tips & Commentary: Is Crime Really Down in San Diego? CA Codes (pen:142-181)
