• Ze_Rosie_Ro@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Article states “law enforcement is working to determine applicable charges in this incident.” Meaning… they don’t have a reason.

      • BlameThePeacock
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        They can’t have a reason, it’s not illegal to hold up a flag. They may be able to stretch it to trespassing at best.

          • BlameThePeacock
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            18 hours ago

            That’s why I said stretch. He could have been asked to leave immediately, then charged with trespass for not leaving fast enough or something.

            • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Technically, authorization to be on a property can be explicitly conditional, and intentional violation of those conditions can amount to trespass. If they had expressly forbidden the performers from political expression, protestation, etc. as part of their contract or notice was given as part of their being allowed on the field, then they could be charged with trespass for breaking the conditions upon which they were allowed on the field. But only if those conditions were made clear before hand and the performer intentionally violated those conditions.

              • orcrist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                16 hours ago

                That’s not how most state trespassing laws are written. You typically can’t wrap up trespassing in a contract like that.

                • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 hours ago

                  Laws do differ state to state. Trespass may be more or less restrictive in different places. In Louisiana where this took place, the trespass law reads, in part…

                  C. (1) No person shall remain in or upon property, movable or immovable, owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

                  This does not require that the person be given direct notice that they are no longer authorized or had their permission revoked before they are required to leave like some states may require. The only requirement is that they no longer have authorization (expressed, legal or implied). If conditionals for authorization were given and you knowingly break those conditions, you no longer have express or implied authorization. That is trespass.

                  Again, all this is hypothetical. I’m not saying that these conditions were expressly given by the NFL or anyone else involved with the Super Bowl or half time show. I’m just say that there is the realm of possibility where they could have been, and in that case, the moment he violated those conditions, it would be trespass.

                  • Mohamed
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    51 minutes ago

                    Not a lawyer.

                    From the argument, it seems that the violation of the conditions in itself is not trespassing. Trespassing is staying after the conditions were violated. Since the person was promptly removed, it is very hard to argue that they trespassed.

              • just_another_person@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 hours ago

                No.

                He was allowed on the property, and that presumes he was intended to be there. If at some point they were told they were trespassing, then they need to leave. There is no such thing as a “conditional trespass” in US law after you’re already there.

                This will fall apart in court if it’s a trespass charge.

                • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 hours ago

                  If i put a no solicitation sign on my property and solicitors walk past that to come knock on my door, that’s trespass. If i put up a no fishing sign on my pond, and you come and fish, you’re trespassing. Just because I may otherwise welcome the neighbors to come hang out and swim in my pond, doesn’t mean you can do what you want when I’ve expressly forbidden it on my property. Your allowance on my property is conditional and intentionally violating those conditions means you are no longer welcome and you’re aware of it. Passive notice is still notice. Same way with no trespassing signs or locked gates.

                  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    17 hours ago

                    Yeah, that is actually trespassing if you’re giving notice. If you invite someone onto your property, then call the cops because they are trespassing, YOU will be in the wrong.

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Not only arrested for no reason, banned from ever being in an NFL stadium or event for no reason

      “The individual will (be) banned for life from all NFL stadiums and events,” NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy said in an emailed statement.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        There’s no reason to arrest him, he didn’t break any laws.

        However, the NFL isn’t the government, they’re a private organization, they can tell someone that they’re banned from their properties and events just about as easily as you can tell someone that they’re not welcome at your back yard BBQ (as long as they’re not banning them because they belong to a protected class)

        They’re probably well within their rights here to ban them just because they don’t like what he did.

        However, I can almost guarantee you that with an organization as lawyered-up as the NFL he signed some sort of contact to be a part of the performance where he agreed to some policy or code of conduct or something that says in some way that performers aren’t permitted to go off-script like that, and not only can they decide to ban him for that but they may be able to sue him for breach of contract or something.

        • WamGams
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          My understanding is that half time show employees are contractors for Pepsi Frito-Lay, not the NFL.

          This person likely didn’t even sign authorization for the NFL to background check them.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          17 hours ago

          There’s no reason to arrest him, he didn’t break any laws.

          By unfurling a flag that represents an enemy nation and its people, he is threatening the reputation and profits of the NFL franchise. This is a more dangerous act than the violation of any law (which - hey, fuck it - not like people don’t get away with doing that shit all the time).

          He’s lucky he left the stadium with a pulse.

          only can they decide to ban him for that but they may be able to sue him for breach of contract or something.

          It was, without a doubt, a brave and revolutionary act. Americans hate that shit.

          • WamGams
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            He luckily left the stadium with a pulse? What the fuck are you talking about?

            The NFL and the security forces they employ, do not murder protestors. I speak with some authority on the matter here, as I have previously been employed by the NFL as a security personnel.

            Statistically speaking, a stadium during an NFL game is the safest from being murdered an American will ever be in their entire lives.