Nelson: Given your familiarity with the Cal Penal Code, I assume you are a criminal attorney or have been charged with this offense. The analysis is still weak.

johnnynucleo on April 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM

No johnny, I am a former law enforcement office in California, it was my JOB to know California law, it would be wisw for you to defer to those who DO know California law instead of accusing them to be criminals.

http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/17/conservative-filmmaker-tries-to-get-arrested-succeeds/

John Ziegler, you’ll remember, considers tragic suicide the perfect occasion for self-promotion, so his recent antics should come as no surprise. Here’s what happened:
He announced that he would demonstrate the Walter Cronkite Award for Ex…

Ziegler was in so since a disruption to anything except to leftard smugness

.

Boy, I must be drunk!

Ziegler was not a disruption to anything except to leftard smugness.

USC police are pretty sensitive to cameras on campus because of the film school there. Cinema students have to apply for permits to film (and their productions could be disruptive shooting on 16mm).

the_souse on April 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Not the same. The trouble with students are that they are idiots. I was once down a side mall off the main shopping drag, when a woman pulled me into her store by my arm and locked the door. She said there was an armed robbery going on with guys with shotguns. I then saw some guys run pass, dressed like cops with guns. I then saw real cops run pass and arrest the fake cops and fake robbers and charge them with filming without a permit.

Ziegler was in so since a disruption to anything except to leftard smugness.

I did suggest that one should follow the trail and would personally enjoy seeing full disclosure over the Obama, Ayers and Annenberg Challenge connection, the money and Fact Check.

I don’t want to make assumptions and want to get this straight:

You think there is (or could be) an Obama/Ayers/Annenberg Challenge connection to Ziegler’s “arrest” on the USC campus?

If so, that has to be the dumbest thing I’ve read all week — and I’ve been on this site a lot over the past seven days.

Since USC is a private university they can set whatever rules they like concerning your presence on their property. It is no different that you tossing somebody off your property that you don’t want there.
Hawthorne

Really?

So if someone is walking down the side walk and happens to put their foot on my lawn I can whack em up side the head with a baseball bat?

Some how I don’t think that’s right.

For some reason I think if I whacked someone up side the head for putting a foot on my lawn, I think I would be in jail facing assault charges at a minimum.

Tom Tom,

Just got back to the site and saw your response. Even took the time to read a few of your other posts.
Now, normally I don’t get into pissing matches with piss ants- it gets smelly and attracts more ants. But I will make an exception here.
Nothing about the character of the Senior Annenberg was intimated. I’m sure he never expected the termites to invade the sill plates of the foundation. Yet, they are chewing their way even higher. And in truth Ms Wallis Annenberg is on the board of trustees of USC.

I did suggest that one should follow the trail and would personally enjoy seeing full disclosure over the Obama, Ayers and Annenberg Challenge connection, the money and Fact Check.
Since you seem to fancy yourself a journalist, judging from your critiques, perhaps You could be the one to exercise some real journalistic integrity and forsake your sacred cows long enough to delve into these. (Guessing here that sacred cows won’t offend PETA types)
You could perhaps even include coverage as to how and why the MSM was co-opted by the leftists to sway an electorate (and would just as soon require you to be credentialed before you could even write a dissenting word in any public forum) and who then gives a reward to a gnome like Couric for a set-up hit piece (that’s real journalism).
Who knows. You could become the next Solzhenitsyn.

Maybe if Mr. Z had played the part of a paparazzi and gotten to the “private party honoring a public figure” with in your face strobe flashes he’d have fared much better.

First, there’s no Irony here, this is exactly what they teach in these liberal schools. Control the media and you can get what you want. Liberals have known this for years.

Second, it sounds like he was actually granted access, but had to stay in a specific area. Nothing unusual there. Just try to cover the Grammies anyplace you want, you’ll get trampled by large men in black suits. He should have stayed in the “designated area” (but obviously, it didn’t suit him, so he moved).

Third, Curit is a TOOL!

They’ll do just fine.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

I do know what it means. The fact my stance in support of the actions of a private institution makes you think I support totalitarianism suggests that you don’t understand what it means.

You have a great weekend too!

1. He wasn’t on a street.
2. Has it been established that there an easement in favor of the public over the sidewalk on which Ziegler was “reporting”?
3. Does the City of L.A. or other public entity maintain that sidewalk?
4. None of that stuff even matters if the HuffPo/USC report is true, because Ziegler was allowed permission to be on campus – consent renders the trespassing argument moot. Besides, Ziegler wasn’t removed because of trespassing.
5. Does the definition of security guard applicable encompass a private university police force?

I agree with Sarge on this one. Ziegler got off easy. If that were my campus, I’d be proud of my private cops.

This clown got much less than he deserved. His video clearly shows him ignoring verbal orders. He’s not listening and he’s talking over the officers and whoever the guy in the suit is. Journalist or not, Ziegler had absolutely no right to be where he was. The officers had every right to remove him. In fact, he was treated with the kindest of kid gloves. Had he pulled that childish stunt in my city he would have been eating pavement in about 10 seconds.

He provoked a scene to get himself publicity. He knew the rules and he behaved like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. Those of you calling the officers jack booted thugs are morons who know nothing about the law, and I’m embarassed that you are “conservatives” posting on my favorite blog.

RegularJoe on April 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM

I’ve explained my position on this pretty well and in a rational manner. Yet, you still seem to want to say I back totalitarianism. Sorry, but I’m done with you.

Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM

So then you won’t be responding to my assertion that college campuses are cracking down on free speech? Yeah, I guess that is pretty clear. As for whether you back totalitarianism, well… as my hero, Indego Montoya said, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

Going to supper with friends. Everyone (even Tom, if you relent and read this) have a great spring weekend. Do something nice for someone that can’t do anything for you in return!

Nelson – That sounds more like a soundbite from a radio talk show than a reasoned legal analysis. Which part of USC isn’t private? I can’t believe it’s true that the City of Los Angeles maintains the sidewalks, but assuming you’re right, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a municipality agrees to maintain something means that something is open to the public. Interesting to see so many of you fighting against private property rights today. Careful what you wish for.

johnnynucleo on April 17, 2009 at 4:21 PM

You might educate yourself on California Penal code 602 which states; “a person cannot commit trespassing on a publicly maintained street or easement to which the public is allowed egress.” and “No person shall be held to be illegally trespassing when that person holds to a public egress on private property with an easment or access to public eagress.”
Security guards have a VERY finite power to detain which is to detain ONLY “upon witnessing a felony act or attempt to do bodily harm upon person or persons.”