North Carolina GOP HQ Firebombed
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Sure he was ... just in the figurative sense, not a legal one ...
Yeeeeah ... for 12 hours ... with Trump signs displayed ... apparently staring into an a Democratic campaign office ... while exposing a firearm he was carrying ... for all inside to see:
Legally armed protester stands outside Dittmar campaign offices for hours
Under the Code of Virginia, to be guilty of Stalking one only has to engage in conduct towards another person on more than one occasion "... with the intent to place, or when he knows or reasonably should know that the conduct places that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury ..."
IOW: Intent is not required ... just reasonable knowledge that one's conduct is placing someone in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury.
It is a Class 1 Misdemeanor on the first offense, and a Class 6 felony if a second offense occurs within 5 years.
If he's at all smart, he won't return for Round 2 ...
Indeed ...On the other hand, when interviewed by the local news he said, "We're not a threat to anybody, the only threat is ignorance, and ignorance breeds fear." So... irony.
IMO, this dipshizz ought to be working on curing his own ignorance ... of the optics ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Condemn of course.
I would have "liked" your post re condemnation ... but when I'm on the desktop computer the buttons to do so are aren't there in my browser ...
I condemn it, too, of course, But I'm not sure sarcasm should be off limits as a mechanism to deal with it. It's such a retarded and despicable act that it's easy to look at it, shake your head, and make a joke. No one was hurt, which is the main thing.
Unfortunately, Trump will be blamed for this and other political violence, despite the fact that resistance and revolutionary thoughts have been flowing through the minds of many Americans for a long time, maybe 30 years. It's a slow simmering pot that I think has a few more presidential election cycles to go before it boils over, but eventually it will. It always does. When that happens, out of the ashes will rise a strong leader, probably from a third party, and hopefully one that is not the Antichrist.
He was protesting for Trump (and very likely against Dittmar who is a big gun control advocate), so having Trump signs displayed shouldn't seem all that odd.
No reports that he stood there and and stared for the entire 12 hours into the campaign office. The only reference of that was in Su Wolff's comments, where she didn't say that's what he did, she said that's what he is not to do. It's highly unlikely that he was able to stare into the office for 12 hours. He was talking to people who walked by him on the street, to reporters, and to the police. So his attention was diverted for at least part of those 12 hours.
As for "exposing his firearm," well, that's more or less the definition of open-carry. Hard to open carry a concealed firearm.
One of the best lines I've ever read in a news piece...
"Parks was eventually joined by another protester, and Wolff said that the most troubling part of the protest was that both of them started to expose their firearms."
The only thing Ms. Wolff left off was the "if ya know what I mean" <wink, wink>
Under the Code of Virginia, to be guilty of Stalking one only has to engage in conduct towards another person on more than one occasion "... with the intent to place, or when he knows or reasonably should know that the conduct places that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury ..."[/quote]Golly. You'd think the police in Virginia would know about this statute as it applies to protesting. Give 'em a call.
Jane Dittmar took to Facebook to inform her constituents of the situation at the campaign office, and encouraged them to commit a felony by misusing the 911 system to report a man not breaking the law if they felt uncomfortable, at all.
"There is a Trump supporter who has been sitting outside of our Fluvanna campaign office who is armed. We have alerted local law enforcement who are monitoring the situation. If you feel uncomfortable at all, we encourage you to call 911 or contact us at 434-218-2120. Everyone please stay safe."
In any case, here's dood not staring into the campaign office. I scared. He look menacing.
Indeed ...On the other hand, when interviewed by the local news he said, "We're not a threat to anybody, the only threat is ignorance, and ignorance breeds fear." So... irony.
IMO, this dipshizz ought to be working on curing his own ignorance ... of the optics ...[/QUOTE]Oh, I dunno. He wasn't doing anything wrong and he has to protect his Trump signs from Hillary supporters somehow.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No need ... looks like someone already did ...
Could be they'll getting another call at some point though ...
Hey ... If ya see somethin', say somethin' ...
You could give Jane a call and mansplain to her how an armed guy standing outside for 12 hours straight apparently (what a bladder!) and staring into her offices is something she or her supporters shouldn't be concerned about ... because you know: it's not like there have been any other Trump supporters with weapons in the news lately that have been looking to be involved in violent criminal acts against unsuspecting victims ...
Oh ... wait ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
What a slap in the face for Trump after his last over the top statement...
“Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning,” Trump posted to Twitter on Sunday evening.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah ... "animals" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) ...
No dog whistles there I'm sure ... to say nothing of the fact that he just accused the Democratic nominee and Dems of actually being involved in the firebombing itself ... based what exactly ?
No evidence to suggest such a thing that I'm aware of ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Foot ?
No, I think it's way worse than that ... more like sucking on the barrel of a howitzer just before he pulls the "fire" cord ...
At any rate, he's already demonstrated that he isn't going to be controlled ...
I don't need to. Her Facebook page was deluged with that very sentiment.
False equivalency much?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah ... largely by folks who aren't at all in the position that those that were in the campaign office were in ...
#empathy
You mean like the false equivalency some employ regarding Muslim refugees and immigrants ?
Probably just need some "extreme vetting" ... YUGE !
Nope. No empathy whatsoever for those who conjure up boogeymen in their heads. Being concerned, even afraid, is one thing, and calling the police about those concerns is fine. But to advocate on Facebook that others call en mass if they feel uncomfortable at all is undeserving of empathy.
Perhaps, somewhat, but no not really. Equating a self-declared and open Trump supporter who is engaged in peaceful protest with that of a thwarted terrorist who oh by the way just so happens to be a Trump supporter (who's support of Trump was not part of the news story), isn't really the same thing at all as a reason why Dittmar called the police. Especially when you take into account the news of the thwarted plot didn't break until after Dittmar had called the police Friday morning.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
But you don't know that that (conjuring up boogeymen in their heads) was what was actually done ... or any idea of the particular history of the people involved.
IOW: the above sounds like speculation on your part.
Without knowing the history of the individuals involved, you have no way of knowing whether or not this "incident" caused them to be in reasonable fear of personal harm ...
Mebbe a bad choice of words on her part .... and I understand that that is your opinion.
However, my thoughts on the matter are a little different.
Since we haven't spoken in quite a while, I'll share a just a little bit of a story - without going into all the gory details - that might shed some light on why I feel bit differently and am not quite as dismissive as you seem to be. ...
- edited for reasons of personal security -
... Keep in mind: The individuals in that campaign office probably had absolutely no idea who this fellow was ... he could have been anyone ... including a complete psycho.
Just because someone is "opening-carrying" doesn't necessarily mean that they are in legal possession of a firearm ...
Please feel free to reply any of the above if you so desire, but I'd really appreciate you not quoting any of it ... as I will be editing the post within 24 hours and deleting the details ... for what should be fairly obvious security reasons.
Last edited:
I do know that Jane Dirrmar is a gun control proponent. In addition to her Facebook post informing her volunteers of the armed Trump supporter and informing them that the police were monitoring the situation (and instructing them to call 911), she replied to a few people who responded. One poster, April Palmer, said, "Are you serious? We met this guy & he was very calm & nice. He had a lot of support from bystanders as well. Do you know the laws in va about open carry? He did nothing wrong."
To which Dittmar replied...
"Hi April, we are aware that he is currently obeying the law. However, we must warn our volunteers so that they can make appropriate decisions for themselves. Thank you"
Instead of using the opportunity to calm people down, she wanted to give her volunteers a warning to be prepared to be intimidated.
She of course also Tweeted.what certainly reads like an urgent Tweet. "There is an armed man outside of our Fluvanna office intimidating volunteers - if you feel uncomfortable please contact 911 immediately."
Stating there is an armed man outside of the office intimidating volunteers implies an overt act on his part. There was no act of intimidation on his part. Subjective feelings of intimidation do not meet the relevant criminal standard. And Tweeting to people to immediately call 911 if you feel uncomfortable is reckless, as just reading a Tweet like that from a candidate you support could make you feel uncomfortable.
But more importantly, He arrived shortly after the campaign office opened that morning. She called the police that morning (I do not know what time). Her Tweet went out at 2:26 PM and her Facebook post went out at 4:23 PM. I admit that I am making an assumption here when I say the police probably arrived well before either of the social media posts. I also assume the police checked out the situation and monitored things sufficiently as to determine any criminal intimidation. Yet, apparently, after all that, they remained intimidated. Boogeyman.
Then there's the quote from Su Wolff: "He turned sideways to be sure that we would see that he has an open carry gun, which is legal, and is fine, but it's intimidating."
So for Ms Wolff, and apparently a lot of others, something that's "fine" is nevertheless still "intimidating." That doesn't make a strong case for reasonable feelings of intimidation. More likely, these people are afraid of guns in general and are intimidated by them whenever they see one.
I still think urging her followers on Twitter and Facebook to call 911 if they feel uncomfortable, essentially encouraging rapid-fire calls to the emergency service, was incredibly reckless. Like I said before, being concerned or afraid is one thing, completely understandable. and calling the police about those concerns is fine. But encouraging multiple people to call 911 with reports of a man with a gun intimidating volunteers could create a very tense, dangerous and even lethal situation when the and SWAT rolled up.
All he was doing was peacefully protesting and handing out copies of the US Constitution.
SNIP
From the story it certainly sounds like you had more than reasonable justification to feel intimidated. Glad it turned out OK.
Which is why the initial concern and calling the police is understandable. Prudent, even. But after several hours of being out there and showing no overt actions of intimidation (according to the many replies on her Facebook page), and after having the police check out the situation, it falls on them in the office to get the boogeyman out of their head.
I remember a time when I was in Rogers, MN talking on the phone (you might remember, as I was talking to you) when I drove from the TA across the street over the the Subway. I parked in front of the restaurant on the far side of the lot, not directly in front of the building, with the rear of the van towards the building, and continued to talk on the phone for, I dunno, half an hour, maybe more. I then got off the phone and went into the restaurant to get a sandwich. It was about 7 PM, crowded, and I got in line. As I finally made my way to be next in line to place my order the police arrived. I didn't take much note, except one of the officers went over and talked to one of the employees and then came over to me and asked me what I was doing there.
I was a a bit taken aback and I answered, "Ordering a sandwich. Why?"
He told me that I had been parked in the lot for a long time and the employees in the restaurant grew concerned. We had a pleasant conversation, and I told him I understood the the reason they called, what with all of the employees working at that time were female and they were overly cautious, and the fear of the unknown or unusual is a natural one. But I also made clear my irritation over the police having been called about someone parking in a public parking lot during normal business hours. It's not like I pulled up there in the dark, then sat and looked like I was waiting for closing time. <snort>
The police left, although they didn't actually leave the lot until after I did, and I got a free sandwich out of the deal.
People have a right to privacy, and with that comes the right to be left alone and the right to not be intimidated, harassed, or menaced upon. However, people do not have a right to any totally subjective state of mind. If we did, then a mere accusation would be all that is necessary for a conviction. But having said that, everyone has a right to a reasonably objective state of safety and security. That state is defined in terms of the actions of others, though, rather than the mental state of those acted upon. You may subjectively feel intimidated, but for it to be actual intimidation, it must be an intentional behavior that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities fear of injury or harm.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Stop right there ... that isn't what she told them to do.
You being selective ... and leaving out information. That creates a distorted picture.
Here's what she actually said:
"We'd like you to be aware of a situation at our Fluvanna County campaign office. There is a Trump supporter who has been sitting outside of our Fluvanna campaign office who is armed. We have alerted local law enforcement who are monitoring the situation. If you feel uncomfortable at all, we encourage you to call 911 or contact us at 434-218-2120. Everyone please stay safe."
So it was conditional advice (If you) and offered a choice of who to contact.
(BTW this is the one that occurred @ 2:23 …)
Hindsight being 20/20, if she was smart - and perhaps not totally freaked out by an armed Trump supporter/protestor spending 12 hours or so staring into her campaign office in a place he had no business being for that particular purpose - she probably should have called her landlord - since she is likely a paying tenant and, as a paying tenant, has a (actual) right to quiet enjoyment of her tenancy - and asked him to call the police and have the protestor removed - physically if necessary.
There is no "right to protest" nor is there a right to "open carry" on someone else's private property ... kinda similar to the idea there is no "right to free speech" on private internet message boards or forums ... something I would think you - of all people - would be well aware of.
Just ask The Donald if you don't believe me (Get 'em outta here ...)
For those unfamiliar with the term, here's the definition:
Quiet Enjoyment. A Covenant that promises that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants. Quiet enjoyment is a right to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of real property by a tenant or landowner.
It is a typical provision in leases and rental agreements of commercial property.
The tenants occupying such a commercial property have a purpose for being there - primarily to conduct some business of whatever type they choose that is within the law - and any private individuals who enter onto the property need to have a legitimate reason for being there.
Guess what ?
"Protesting" and "open-carrying" ain't typically one of them.
Mr. Duck Dynasty Wannabe - in his self-righteous rush to assert his (imaginary) rights to "protest" and "open carry" (in a place where they don't actually exist) ... likely violated her - or her campaign's - actual right to ... possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants and her right to quiet enjoyment and undisturbed use of a property she or her campaign was actually paying for.
Because: ignorance ... +, of course, ... moron ...
My guess is that sometime tomorrow - depending on what time I get up - that campaign office will get a friendly call ... reminding them of what their (actual) rights are ... and that office over there in Richmond just might receive a similar call.
Another moron.
Yeah, no ... actually he probably did.
To the point that he could quite possibly be arrested for criminal trespass ... if he tries it again or a third time ... after being duly informed that his presence isn't wanted.
Last edited:
No, no, no. I have already posted the Facebook message in its entirety. There was no reason whatsoever to post it again in it's entirety.Everything I say regarding the Facebook page (or the Tweet) is in the context of the full and complete contents of the post.
Again, in addition to posting the entire message, I have mentioned the "if you" (and alternatively, "if they") at least twice. I saw no need in repeating the same thing again, as by now the content and context of her message should be clear.
Not only is hindsight 20/20, but it rewrites itself, as well. It's been proved that he didn't spend 12 hours or so staring into her campaign office, and he wasn't there for the particular purpose of staring into her office window. He was there to exercise his rights, campaign for Trump, and to hand out copies of the US Constitution. She wasn't even there at the office and the Palmyra office is not her campaign headquarters.
It depends. Strip shopping centers like the one the campaign office is in (along with a Chinese restaurant, nail salon, bakery, Mailbox Express, a couple of others) is open to the public and is considered to be quasi-public property. Just how quasi- (being "almost" or "resembling" - but not actually the same as the suffix item) it is depends on for what the property is open to the public. Shopping centers and malls and the like generally do not dedicate their property to public use, but rather to invite the public in to carry on business with those stores located in the center. So there is no absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. On that you're right.
Case history mostly involves handbilling, picketting or protesting (free speech issues, all of them) usually political in nature. The courts have ruled “there is no open-ended invitation to the public to use the property for any and all purposes." In those cases, unless the nature of the free speech has a relation to any purpose for which the center was built and being used, it's not gonna be allowed (or at least the property owner can, if they wish, disallow it). But if there is a relationship between the purpose of the expressive activity and the business of the shopping center, the property rights of the center owner will overbalance the expressive rights to persons who would use their property for communicative purposes, and thus the expressive activity is protected.
Since he was there in direct relation to the Dittmar campaign which has an office in that shopping center, to protest Dittmar's position on firearms and the Second Amendment, and to protest in favor of the opposing political party, his speech is protected. If he went across the street to the other shopping center where the Subway and Food Lion is... not allowed.
Virginia is one of 15 states (including Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, both Carolinas, Texas) with extremely narrow rules regarding the use of quasi-public space and they have declined to extend any right of free expression to privately owned property. That means no handing out of handbills or gathering signatures to get someone or something on the ballot, and no political protests, unless the expressive activity is in directly relation to the shopping center or a business at the center. In the other states, political speech and political protest is protected in the quasi-public spaces of shopping centers and non-public universities.
Palmyra is a really, really small town. Probably not even 2000 people in it. The campaign office is nestled in between April Nails and Day Spa and the Asian Buffet. Once Thelma Lou called Barney, Andy went down and checked it out and didn't find anything wrong.
Yeah, people in a state love it when someone from another state calls them up and tells them what's what.
Another moron.
Yeah, no ... actually he probably did.
To the point that he could quite possibly be arrested for criminal trespass ... if he tries it again or a third time ... after being duly informed that his presence isn't wanted.[/QUOTE]Possibly, but highly unlikely. The police didn't seem to think he was breaking any laws. Even Dittmar agreed that he wasn't breaking the law.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
But apparently there was some reason to ommit a portion of what she was advised them to do in your subsequent statement.
Fair point.
That his claim, yes.
Fair points ... but largely irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.
Not really (see below).
Yes I am ...
There are significant problems with using a historical recounting of the state of the law at various times to make a point - particularly when one uses some portion of that recounting that reflected what the law was at some past point - due to court holdings at a particular point in time - but does not reflect what the state of the law is at present.
The language above (in bold) which apparently you believe is controlling, was held in Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 308 (1968)
There is a subsequent case - Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972) - which holds otherwise. Anyone can read the full decision at the link below:
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972)
Overview of that case:
"Respondents sought to distribute handbills in the interior mall area of petitioner's large privately owned shopping center. Petitioner had a strict no-handbilling rule. Petitioner's security guards requested respondents under threat of arrest to stop the handbilling, suggesting that they could resume their activities on the public streets and sidewalks adjacent to but outside the center, which respondents did. Respondents, claiming that petitioner's action violated their First Amendment rights, thereafter brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief. The District Court, stressing that the center is "open to the general public" and "the functional equivalent of a public business district," and relying on Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501, and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308, held that petitioner's policy of prohibiting handbilling within the mall violated respondents' First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed."
In Tanner the Court outlined the issue presently before the Court:
"The basic issue in this case is whether respondents, in the exercise of asserted First Amendment rights, may distribute handbills on Lloyd's private property contrary to its wishes and contrary to a policy enforced against all handbilling. In addressing this issue, it must be remembered that the First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are also relevant to this case. They provide that "[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." There is the further proscription in the Fifth Amendment against the taking of "private property . . . for public use, without just compensation."
"Respondents contend, however, that the property of a large shopping center is "open to the public," serves the same purposes as a "business district" of a municipality, and therefore has been dedicated to certain types
of public use. The argument is that such a center has sidewalks, streets, and parking areas which are functionally similar to facilities customarily provided by municipalities. It is then asserted that all members of the public, whether invited as customers or not, have the same right of free speech as they would have on the similar public facilities in the streets of a city or town."
The Court then addresses the underlying reasoning for their decision:
"The argument reaches too far. The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use. The closest decision in theory, Marsh v. Alabama, supra, involved the assumption by a private enterprise of all of the attributes of a state-created municipality and the exercise by that enterprise of semi-official municipal functions as a delegate of the State. [Footnote 13] In effect, the owner of the company town was performing the full spectrum of municipal powers, and stood in the shoes of the State. In the instant case there is no comparable assumption or exercise of municipal functions or power."
"Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center. This is not to say that no differences may exist with respect to government regulation or rights of citizens arising by virtue of the size and diversity of activities carried on within a privately owned facility serving the public. There will be, for example, problems with respect to public health and safety which vary in degree and in the appropriate government response, depending upon the size and character of a shopping center, an office building, a sports arena, or other large facility serving the public for commercial purposes. We do say that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of private property owners, as well as the First Amendment rights of all citizens, must be respected and protected. The Framers of the Constitution certainly did not think these fundamental rights of a free society are incompatible with each other. There may be situations where accommodations between them, and the drawing of lines to assure due protection of both, are not easy. But on the facts presented in this case, the answer is clear."
The Court then delivers its decision.
"We hold that there has been no such dedication of Lloyd's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use as to entitle respondents to exercise therein the asserted First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate the injunction."
Definitely would have been true in 1968 ... after Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 308 was decided.
But not in 1972 after Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551.
That's correct ... the specific controlling case as regards testing the issue in the State of Virginia appears to be Collins v. Shoppers' World, LLC, Va. Supreme Court. Here's a quick summary of what they held from the Rutherford Institute:
"Rich Collins, a candidate for the Virginia General Assembly, was charged with trespassing after he refused to stop leafletting at a private shopping center in Albemarle County, Virginia. TRI brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that Collins had a right to engage in this activity under the Virginia Constitution's protection of free expression. Argument on the claim was held in the Virginia Supreme Court on February 14, 2007. Eventually the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the decision below that the state constitution does not give political candidates the right to engage in leafletting at shopping centers that are otherwise open to the public."
If you are basing that qualification (highlighted in bold above) on Supreme Court jurisprudence, then that reasoning is flawed ... because you have focused on what used to be the state of the law under previous holdings (1968), rather than subsequent findings which served to clarify what the law is at present.
For a recap of the history of the matter and the relevant current state of the law - at both the state and federal level - the link below provides a good overview:
Assembly on private property | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That is correct.
You sure that it wasn't Andy that took the call and actually Barney that showed up, rather than Andy ?Palmyra is a really, really small town. Probably not even 2000 people in it. The campaign office is nestled in between April Nails and Day Spa and the Asian Buffet. Once Thelma Lou called Barney, Andy went down and checked it out and didn't find anything wrong.
The police - and I can tell you this from personal experience - are very rarely holders of a law degree.
Their knowledge is generally quite limited on the law ... most often to specific statutes that they deal with regularly, rather than case law ... which is a wholly different thing.
Oh I dunno ... reasonable people generally seem to be willing to accept actual help when it's offered in good faith ... regardless of where it comes from.
Well, it's quite possible that neither the police or Dittmar actually know the relevant case law that applies.
Same could probably be said for almost anyone.