‘Don’t hang around this area.’
At a Romney event in New Hampshire on Monday, a Harvard Kennedy and Divinity School student named Matt Bieber was asked by two police officers to leave the premises because, as he writes on his blog, the police said that “the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney’s office in Manchester.” Bieber told the police that he didn’t even know there had been protests at Romney’s New Hampshire HQ. He asked to speak to someone from the campaign, but the police refused. He asked to speak to the owner of the venue. No. Not that it would have mattered: “The company had delegated authority to the campaign, and the campaign had authorized the police to remove anyone the campaign didn’t want present,” Bieber writes. After he asked the officers a few more questions, they had had enough. “You’re under arrest,” one of them said. They cuffed him, put him in the back of their police cruiser, took him to the police station, booked him, and put him in a cage.
An officer named Manni and another officer processed my paperwork. As they did so, they told me not to go back to “that area” when I was released. I indicated that I understood I wasn’t permitted to be on the company’s land or facilities, but surely I could go back to the street if I so chose – it’s public property, after all. Don’t go back to that area, they said. If you go back, you might cause a disturbance or a riot, and you could be arrested for disorderly conduct.
I tried to keep calm and ask even-keeled questions. Were they telling me I wasn’t even permitted in the street near the facility? And if so, on what grounds? I thought: I’m not planning on starting any trouble, but if I wanted to go and express myself by talking to the media about what had happened, wasn’t that my right?
And then the following exchange took place. I began to ask, “If I express my First Amendment freedoms –
And Officer Manni interjected, “You’ll probably be arrested.”
(…)
It was clear to me that the two officers had no interest in discussing what the law actually said, or what my rights actually entailed. I was paperwork, and they wanted to get it over with. I kept asking questions, and at one point, one of them opened up the New Hampshire legal code and read me the definition of disorderly conduct. He read the words dully, as if they were just syllables, with no interest at all in what they meant.
I asked the officer if he could help me connect what he’d just read with my situation and understand why it would be a problem to return to the street outside the event. He told me that I might return and say things that “aren’t what others think.”
Live free or die.
Next Monday is the MLK holiday and I keep wondering how far we came and now how we keep moving backward.
Command/control by the new purvors of truth, freedom and the constitution (or othert good buzz words) represent the new order.
@Jim Jenkins (1/11, 11:27 am) It may be that the Romney campaign is unique in this regard. I suspect that’s not the case—particularly given the coordinated crackdown on the Occupy movement last fall, and the way in which citizens outside of political convention halls are restricted to “First Amendment zones” these days, to cite just a couple of examples.
I’m hopeful that in the coming months and years there will be a steady push back on the restriction of constitutional rights that we’ve seen over the past decade. Perhaps not unlike the way Dorothy Day and others in NYC nonviolently resisted mandatory air raid drills in the 1950s, and brought them to an end.
Jim Jenkins’s comment was removed because it was little more than an ad hominem attack. Jim, if you leave another one, you’ll find your account blocked.
I think in the end Repubs will choose Romney and that he will in turn choose as running mate either Rubio (FLA) or Jindal (LA). Meanwhile Romney would be wise to start signalling to the other canidates that he will make room for them e.g., Bachman (already out of race) for IRS or budget things, Gingrich and Santorum for social services (HUD and HHS), Paul for defese, security or foreign affairs, etc.
“with liberty and justice for all”
Bachman (already out of race) for IRS or budget things, Gingrich and Santorum for social services (HUD and HHS), Paul for defese, security or foreign affairs, etc.
Ken,
Romney really doesn’t scare me that much as a potential president, but if he did what you suggest, I would make plans to leave the country if he gets elected. Ron Paul for foreign affairs?
Is there any way to corroborate any of this? If not, well, shouldn’t there be at least some type of confirmation before referencing it without the requisite caveats?
You mean caveats like “as he writes on his blog,” and “Bieber writes”? I suppose my estimation of our readers’ intelligence is higher than yours.
Those are caveats???
Yes. Remember when you used to pretend you were “in the business”? As someone who actually is in the business of journalism, let me help you out: When you read something like “as he writes,” or “he writes,” or “he says,” or “according to the man,” you are not supposed to believe that what you are reading is objective truth. You are meant to understand that you are reading one person’s account. Especially when you’re reading a blog, and that person’s account is summarized and linked to more than once. Of course, I think you know all of that and you just want to change the subject. I won’t let you.
Thanks for your help, but don’t you think the quality of the thread would have been improved if you had provided some context, if not some professional skepticism? Say, for example, that Mr. Beiber, does not appear to be a disinterested bystander, that he’s had run ins like this with other Republican candidates, that he’s drafted speeches for the current (Democratic) VP…or am I just wanting to “change the subject”?
How stupid do you think our readers are, Mark? I ask, because I linked to Bieber’s site three times fully expecting them to click through and read it for themselves. I’m glad to see that you have. Now stop concern-trolling.
I do not think we are stupid at all, Grant. I just think we have justifiably high expectations from your threads, such that, if the source of a derogatory account about a presidential candidate is not a disinterested party, you would give that full disclosure in your thread. The links are to provide further information for those interested in the details, but the important highlights, both pro and con, should be in the original thread, not buried in the links.
Grant –
Speaking of what ought and ought not to be included in our missives, could you please establish a blog rule that whenever an acronym (e.g., “BR” for “blog rule”) is going to be used that the first use of the term must be spelled out unless the acronym is well-known (e.g., “CCC”)? It gets to be a guessing game sometimes.
Mark, isn’t a little early in the presidential campaign for you to be so transparently concern-trolling? Grab some smelling salts and stop pretending like I was trying to put one over on you. Anyone with half a brain knows that someone who attends a political event probably has opinions about politics. And anyone who clicks through to any one of the three links I included in this brief post will see (at the top right of every page) that Bieber holds political views that — gasp — don’t square with Romney’s. Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s lying. The man says he didn’t even know there were protests at Romney’s NH HQ (and he couldn’t find any news accounts of them either). And if he were some kind of calcified partisan, wouldn’t he take the opportunity to angrily attack the Romney campaign for his arrest and detainment? But he really doesn’t. So cut the pious baloney.
Political campaigns are carefully sanitized events, with people thinking about every possible way to prevent controversies and manage whatever images are created. People get kicked out of events all the time, see http://www.kaufmanforcongress.com/?p=708 , and sometimes not even for being a heckler, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6az-brYOsA
I liked it better when CCC stood for the Civilian Conservation Corps. At least THAT provided a useful service to people.
OTOH —– (that means, Oh Tosh, Oh Heavens!! – right?)
(No, Ann, I’m not taking the mickey out of your comment. I spent many years in the military and business and learned that acronyms rule.)
From a legal perspective, nothing that happened at the event violated Mr. Bieber’s rights. He was arrested for criminal trespass because he refused to leave private property after being ordered to do so by someone authorized by the owner of the property . The issue regarding mistaken identity and the unrelated protest is irrelevant. The Romney Campaign was in control of who was allowed to be on the property (a factory and not a place of public accommodation like a lunch counter, so analogies to MLK are not useful) and they could order him to leave for any reason. He didn’t want to leave, but rather wanted to argue with the police and talk to the Romney people. Classic case of trespass per the NH statute. Everything that happened afterwards seems pretty routine for a trespass arrest – pat down search, transport to jail, booking, released on bond, told by police not to return to the property.
You know, I try to be nice, sprinkling compliments into some constructive criticism, and all I get in return for my efforts are snark and insult. Oh well, moving on…thanks for the additional perspective your comments have provided, Studebaker and MikeD.
Actually, what does CCC stand for?
Paul for defense? Sorry, but I think Herman Cain already has first dibs on that one.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-15/politics/30519365_1_herman-cain-political-humor-daily-show-full-episodes
(Warning, this segment is pretty typical Daily Show bleeped-out saltiness)
Catechism of the Catholic Church as in CCC 2238 on respect for civil authorities ;)
I am of two minds regarding this.
I wonder if there is any connection between this and the Gifford’s event. I would be very concerned if I were a politician and can understand the need for security.
However, he had no problem with them checking his backpack and it did not appear that he was being disruptive.
Access to the candidates by regular people who can ask questions affecting their life is important and you should not try stacking the audience (but from what I understand organizers of events like this always do).
However, he does not fit what I would describe as a “regular” person in that I really don’t understand what issue he wants Romney to address that he disagrees with. He sounds pretty plugged in already as a political guy.
“Actually, what does CCC stand for?”
Mark P. –
“Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Try reading it sometimes. You might like it, though you’ll probably find there’s a lot there you don’t agree with :-)
To Grant and Mark: thank you both so much for such a spirited debate about the article (and about journalistic standards more generally). I’m the person who was arrested at the Romney event, and I’d like to add my two cents. Mark, while it’s true that I’ve interned for Democratic officials (and worked for one local Democratic congressional candidate), I’ve also interned for a Republican (Rep. Joe Pitts of PA’s 16th district). I’m not a particularly partisan guy, and I’m not interested in defending anyone – or attacking anyone – simply because of their party affiliation. I’m much interested in being a part of high-quality public conversations about important issues
I didn’t go to NH to have “run-ins” with any of the candidates. I travelled from my home, found lodging, and rented a car because I wanted to see this process up close – to listen, to learn, and to interact and share my thoughts with other citizens (and the candidates themselves, if the opportunity arose). I discovered that my understanding and respect for each of the candidates increased as a result. (And I fully expected the same to occur at the Romney event.)
MikeD, thanks for your views as well. I’m told that things might actually be more complicated from a legal standpoint. One lawyer has written me with the following: “Between you, me and the internet, who is to say you were criminally trespassing, that is, remaining on the property with knowledge that you were forbidden to do so? You were told second-hand by an off-duty cop that someone OTHER than the property owner wanted you gone, but not given proof of that other person’s authority or of the request itself. Not only do I have trouble seeing how this amounts to sufficient knowledge for criminal trespass, but I think you did a prudent thing under the circumstances by attempting to verify the validity of the order, rather than just ignoring it outright.”
Other than the cop actually being on-duty, the rest of the factual description he gives is right.
Also, I was told not to return to the area near the event – not just the property itself. When I asked how I could be restricted from public space near the event, and asked what would happen if I expressed my First Amendment freedoms, one of the officers told me I’d “probably be arrested.”
George D – you’re right, I’ve had some special experiences in politics. But I wasn’t there with an agenda, and I wasn’t even sure if I would have asked a question if given the chance. I just wanted to take it in, to watch and listen and learn.
“…though you’ll probably find there’s a lot there you don’t agree with :-)”
Now, that I don’t agree with!
“I just wanted to take it in, to watch and listen and learn.”
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, Matt. ;-)
Mark –
You just met the young man. You can’t possibly judge him the way you have done.
Matt –
I’m willing to listen. And good for you for being non-violent — you’re in the best tradition there :-)
Thanks so much, Ann. Just got some good news! BuzzFeed ran a story in which the arresting officer admitted that I “hadn’t done anything.” http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/arresting-officer-at-romney-event-says-student-ha
“You just met the young man. You can’t possibly judge him the way you have done.”
Ann, you underestimate me. ;-)
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Matt –
Great news :-) And good for that officer for being honest. But I don’t understand how you could be removed on the basis of your purported prior behavior at an earlier event. I suppose if Romney paid for the hall he could refuse entry to anyone he chose, but he shouldn’t call it a public event.
Have you heard the latest? He’s Mexican. His father was of partly Mexican descent and actually was born in Mexico. Sound familiar? Wonder when Gingerich or somebody will demand his birth certificate.
Hey Ann,
I don’t understand that either! I’m not sure of the legalities of it all, but honestly, the public/private distinction feels like a bit of a red herring. As you suggested, he invited the public there to see him and interact with him in his campaign for our highest public office, and I – like lots of other people – went out of our way to take him up on the opportunity. To my mind, that involves a kind of mutual trust, and this kind of treatment violates that trust.
Matt
In case anyone’s interested in contacting the Romney campaign, here are their spokespeople:
Andrea Saul: ASaul@mittromney.com
Ryan Williams: RWilliams@mittromney.com