|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 6, 2015 11:37:05 GMT -5
It's amazing that you people automatically assume racism and discrimination. You have no idea what happened or what this person actually did. Take away his statement about his ethnicity, and I bet your opinion changes quickly. By his own admission he was sitting in the stands heckling a player. Then after the match he is standing in the stands by him self just looking around at the players and their families. How would you react if you were a parent and your daughter showed up after the match and complain about a guy in the stands. If the players feel uncomfortable about a spectator based on what they said what should be done? I'm not saying this is what happened, but that has as much chance a of being accurate as your racial bias assumption. The only fact we know is that we are not given all the facts. But in the Internet world today people love to jump to conclusions without the facts. completely agree that we don't know all the facts. However, players being "uncomfortable" whatever the heck that means, by heckling fans, certainly isn't a crime, and given that this is DUKE (has anyone ever actually BEEN to a Duke home basketball game? Sh*t gets real), I find little basis for a complaint on that ground. Unless this guy was directly threatening players, coaches, or other fans, I don't buy the whole "how would I react if my daughter (are we giving preference by gender on this, btw?), complained about a guy in the stands." WHY were they complaining? were the concerns more than mere heckling? Duke isn't a dust bowl at games, is there any non biased spectators that could corroborate stories? The story, as presented, smells fishy. Add to that this guy was of middle eastern origin and North Carolina has that whole evangelical christian thing going, and it gets even fishier. Not every smelly story is legit, but just because we don't know all the facts, doesn't mean it doesn't smell.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Oct 6, 2015 11:40:42 GMT -5
It seems to be an extreme response by the school in reaction to the OP's point of view of his own actions. Personally, I would not give up the tickets to the other events. It would be unlikely the security guards, campus police are carrying around his picture, and with high turnoever in that pool of employees, even more so. Of course, there is a risk that the parent(s) in question are boosters and attend all the school's events. Since OP lives in the area, and apparently enjoys and supports many sports at the school it is a bit of a hardship to just not go back anymore. Here is where he gets to decide if the ACLU needs to get involved. Certainly, if their efforts are thwarted because indeed his actions were deemed to be above what he has shared here, then OP just has to scratch off Duke from his entertainment choices. However, ACLU could get this thing reversed, and allow OP to enjoy his tickets for this season and future season, should he decide to spit out the unsavory taste in his mouth for having to deal at all with this. Also too, he has relationships with other club coaches in the area, so he may also jeopardize his relationships with them for the sake of being "right." Tough choices to make from this unfortunate turn of events.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 6, 2015 11:48:22 GMT -5
There are two points in the original post that stand out to me:
It seems odd that he was vocal enough to realize parents did 'glance over' at him. But didn't think that was a big deal. I think most people might feel somewhere between sheepish and mortified if their yelling drew a 'glance' from parents.
Why would you even think of sending a letter to the coaching staff? If he had an issue with security at a Duke basketball game would he send a letter to Mike Krzyzewski?
Duke is a huge organization with necessary layers of bureaucracy and security and standard protocol. Of course they sent a 'stock response of please correspond with the police." Sending letters to the coaching staff and facilities director probably just raises more red flags about someone's behavior.
(This whole thread, by the way, is probably borderline 'off the net.")
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Oct 6, 2015 11:50:48 GMT -5
Several posters have made a point that I hadn't considered. Did the OPs comments out loud compare to what Duke fans say to visiting players at basketball games? If a visiting fan behaved the same against Duke as their players do the visitors, would they be ejected and get a trespass notice? Do they think that the Duke players can't take it?
By the way... I like Duke.
Just because it's Duke I'll throw in a Geno Auriemma quote (in case they think they are better than everyone else)..."You know, there are just as many Duke graduates waiting on tables as there is from any other school in the country. They may just be working at a better restaurant."
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 6, 2015 12:33:21 GMT -5
If someone's being an @$$%*!*, you can let someone know they're being an @$$%*!* pretty easily. That this is a "suspicious loitering" trespassing charge (and not something else) gives credence to the underhandedness/shadiness of the university's action.
Also giving a "suspicious loitering" ticket to a Middle Eastern man is about as dumb as firing a pregnant woman. Charge them with something conduct-related, just for the legal CYA-ness of it.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Oct 6, 2015 12:44:58 GMT -5
I've already sent my personal thoughts to OP, but another thought occurred to me upon reading through. The complaint was "making people uncomfortable with him standing there"..... if he's yelling rude things at the player, why wouldn't that be the complaint? "uncomfortable with his comments toward players", "uncomfortable with his actions toward the team", "uncomfortable with his language in a family environment". Maybe they are just being intentionally vague with the information they provided to OP thus far, but it seems quite odd that if his interaction were connected to his comments during the game, that the complaint seems to make no reference to that.
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Oct 6, 2015 12:49:24 GMT -5
People v. Berck concluded that a similar provision in a loitering statute that required a person to "identify himself" or "give a reasonably credible account of his conduct and purposes" was unconstitutional. Requiring a person suspected of violating the loitering statute provide a "satisfactory explanation" to avoid arrest is also violative of a citizen's right not to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers. Although a police officer may have the right under appropriate circumstances to stop a person in a public place and make inquiry a citizen is under no obligation to provide any explanation regarding his conduct. www.dubberkelman.com/restricted/student_cd/web/nybright.htmBright vs New York Either there was more to this story or the universities story is bunk (I am not an actual lawyer but do have a degree in internet lawyering, no fees are expected for my services)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 6, 2015 12:53:09 GMT -5
People v. Berck concluded that a similar provision in a loitering statute that required a person to "identify himself" or "give a reasonably credible account of his conduct and purposes" was unconstitutional. Requiring a person suspected of violating the loitering statute provide a "satisfactory explanation" to avoid arrest is also violative of a citizen's right not to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers. Although a police officer may have the right under appropriate circumstances to stop a person in a public place and make inquiry a citizen is under no obligation to provide any explanation regarding his conduct. www.dubberkelman.com/restricted/student_cd/web/nybright.htmBright vs New York Either there was more to this story or the universities story is bunk (I am not an actual lawyer but do have a degree in internet lawyering, no fees are expected for my services) That wouldn't apply, as it wasn't the police on public property but the University Police on technically private property.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 6, 2015 13:28:59 GMT -5
People v. Berck concluded that a similar provision in a loitering statute that required a person to "identify himself" or "give a reasonably credible account of his conduct and purposes" was unconstitutional. Requiring a person suspected of violating the loitering statute provide a "satisfactory explanation" to avoid arrest is also violative of a citizen's right not to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers. Although a police officer may have the right under appropriate circumstances to stop a person in a public place and make inquiry a citizen is under no obligation to provide any explanation regarding his conduct. www.dubberkelman.com/restricted/student_cd/web/nybright.htmBright vs New York Either there was more to this story or the universities story is bunk (I am not an actual lawyer but do have a degree in internet lawyering, no fees are expected for my services) That wouldn't apply, as it wasn't the police on public property but the University Police on technically private property. It is a venue that routinely hosts public events, and thus could be considered to be at least quasi-public. You don't give up your constitutional rights because you're attending a public event on private property. There have been many suits over to what degree private malls can restrict free speech, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 6, 2015 13:40:31 GMT -5
More and more, this is looking like he was guilty of "standing while looking middle-eastern". We want people to be vigilant and report anything or anyone they believe to be "suspicious", but that doesn't mean that a quasi-public organization such as Duke Campus Police can run roughshod over attendees' civil rights. What if it was a black person attending a public event who had been banned from campus due to "suspicious loitering"? What if a gay couple?
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Oct 6, 2015 14:06:15 GMT -5
It's amazing that you people automatically assume racism and discrimination. You have no idea what happened or what this person actually did. Take away his statement about his ethnicity, and I bet your opinion changes quickly. By his own admission he was sitting in the stands heckling a player. Then after the match he is standing in the stands by him self just looking around at the players and their families. How would you react if you were a parent and your daughter showed up after the match and complain about a guy in the stands. If the players feel uncomfortable about a spectator based on what they said what should be done? I'm not saying this is what happened, but that has as much chance a of being accurate as your racial bias assumption. The only fact we know is that we are not given all the facts. But in the Internet world today people love to jump to conclusions without the facts. An Arab would have to be an idiot to make any physical threats anywhere these days, and we can confidently see the OP isn't an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Oct 6, 2015 14:09:07 GMT -5
There are two points in the original post that stand out to me: It seems odd that he was vocal enough to realize parents did 'glance over' at him. But didn't think that was a big deal. I think most people might feel somewhere between sheepish and mortified if their yelling drew a 'glance' from parents. Why would you even think of sending a letter to the coaching staff? If he had an issue with security at a Duke basketball game would he send a letter to Mike Krzyzewski? Duke is a huge organization with necessary layers of bureaucracy and security and standard protocol. Of course they sent a 'stock response of please correspond with the police." Sending letters to the coaching staff and facilities director probably just raises more red flags about someone's behavior. (This whole thread, by the way, is probably borderline 'off the net.") If I were coaching a school team I definitely would like to be informed if fans are getting banned for not being white.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 6, 2015 14:17:41 GMT -5
People v. Berck concluded that a similar provision in a loitering statute that required a person to "identify himself" or "give a reasonably credible account of his conduct and purposes" was unconstitutional. Requiring a person suspected of violating the loitering statute provide a "satisfactory explanation" to avoid arrest is also violative of a citizen's right not to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers. Although a police officer may have the right under appropriate circumstances to stop a person in a public place and make inquiry a citizen is under no obligation to provide any explanation regarding his conduct. www.dubberkelman.com/restricted/student_cd/web/nybright.htmBright vs New York Either there was more to this story or the universities story is bunk (I am not an actual lawyer but do have a degree in internet lawyering, no fees are expected for my services) That wouldn't apply, as it wasn't the police on public property but the University Police on technically private property. Most states gives university police similar legal enforcement as state sanctioned police. ยง 74E-6. Oaths, powers, and authority of company police officers. (a) Requirements. - An individual who is commissioned as a company police officer must take the oath of office required of a law enforcement officer before the individual assumes the duties of a company police officer. The person in each company police agency who is responsible for the agency's company police officers must be commissioned as a company police officer. (b) Categories. - The following three distinct classifications of company police officers are established: (1) Campus Police Officers - Only those company police officers who are employed by any college or university that is a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina or any private college or university that is licensed or exempted from licensure as prescribed by G.S. 116-15, and who are employed by a campus police agency that was licensed pursuant to this Chapter prior to the enactment of Chapter 74G of the General Statutes. (2) Railroad Police Officers - Those company police officers who are employed by a certified rail carrier and commissioned as company police officers under this Chapter. (3) Special Police Officers - All company police officers not designated as a campus police officer or railroad police officer. (c) All Company Police. - Company police officers, while in the performance of their duties of employment, have the same powers as municipal and county police officers to make arrests for both felonies and misdemeanors and to charge for infractions on any of the following: (1) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of their employer. (2) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of a person who has contracted with the employer to provide on-site company police security personnel services for the property. (3) Any other real property while in continuous and immediate pursuit of a person for an offense committed upon property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection. Company police officers shall have, if duly authorized by the superior officer in charge, the authority to carry concealed weapons pursuant to and in conformity with G.S. 14-269(b)(4) and (5). (d) Campus Police. - Campus police officers have the powers contained in subsection (c) of this section and also have the powers in that subsection upon that portion of any public road or highway passing through or immediately adjoining the property described in that subsection, wherever located. The board of trustees of any college or university that qualifies as a campus police agency pursuant to this Chapter may enter into a mutual aid agreement with the governing board of a municipality or, with the consent of the county sheriff, a county to the same extent as a municipal police department pursuant to Chapter 160A. As to the public property, this is true, but private universities are a public accommodation so it's not "truly" private property. Education institutions are even more regulated than typical public accommodations.
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Oct 6, 2015 15:38:00 GMT -5
His ticket was for suspicious loitering, not for unruly behavior or inciting violence or verbally abusive language. Therefore, we have to assume that the report involved only his hanging around after the match for no apparent reason, which according to what was said, made parents and/or players "uncomfortable."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 16:00:38 GMT -5
How long after the game ended where you hanging around? How many people were still in the gym that were not players or staff at the point you left? Were you at the game by yourself? You left alone, were you alone the whole time?
|
|