I do believe you’ve just won the first ever argument/debate/discussion on the internet. I stand in awe.

From the article, it looks like the police were called in on Friday afternoon when things started getting out of hand.

Yes, but by whom? The mall management?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by joshbtweets: Just got a link from Professor Volokh! http://bit.ly/6ftTSs Pretty good first day for JoshBlackman.com :)…

Dennis N: Do we know that these were not off duty cops hired by the event?

From the article, it looks like the police were called in on Friday afternoon when things started getting out of hand.

Perhaps. But CRIMINAL ? No.

Correct. If you will kindly read my first (November 23, 2009, 3:08 pm) post to this thread, you will note that I expressed agreement with this proposition.

That’s easier to say in hindsight than in foresight. Once things go bad, it’s probably better to have the cops handle the situation than private contractors.

Oh absolutely agree. I just mean to say that if the cops have to intervene that’s evidence that the management of the event has already ****ed up royally.

As to the adequacy of security, I found a real gem of a case: MASSEY v. JIM CROCKETT PROMOTIONS, INC. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 184 W. Va. 441; 400 S.E.2d 876; 1990 W. Va. LEXIS 254. In essence, plaintiff claims that defendant did not provide sufficient security personnel for the level of crowd (12 security officers and a stadium full of wrestling fans).

The owner or the occupant of premises owes to an invited person the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. This duty requires the owner or the occupant of premises to exercise ordinary care to protect an invited person from injury inflicted by other persons present on such premises.

Dog forbid :-) However, we are not talknig about ‘laudibility’, but ‘arrestiblity’, which equals ‘criminality’.

Is the mall or anyone else ( I grew up at Roosevelt Field, and you’re not missing anything ) liable under civil statute for lack of permit, public ( civil ) nuisance, etc ? Perhaps. But CRIMINAL ? No.

So you want private security contractors (and off-duty police perhaps outside their jurisdictions) having the same authority as actual, on-duty officers? No thanks!

Where did I say anything like that at all?! The authority of private security is a matter of State Law but generally follows the common law rule of trespass (i.e. they ask you to leave) and the shopkeeper’s right (they can detain you if they observe you committing a crime). This is just as true at your local mall as anywhere else.

Security can be a guessing game. How much is enough? PeteP’s reunion would have been fine with no security at all, until Uncle Albert got sideways with Uncle Bill and started that brawl. And who would have guessed that Aunt Mazie would go off her meds and start throwing beer mugs at passing cars?

The question is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the harm — see e.g. Vaughan v. Menlove or Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Moreover, crowd control is something of a different animal than Al and Bill getting in a brawl. In the latter, we can place blame quite squarely on those involved in the altercation whereas in the former, the blame generally falls on the venue. See, e.g. The Restatement (Second) of Torts (A7344) (emphasis mine):

A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to

(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or

(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.

See also (just a quick Lexis): Coronel v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd., 595 N.E.2d 45, 47-48 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) or Bellezzo v. State, 851 P.2d 847, 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).

Oren: They did not take adequate precautions and, as a foreseeable result, the situation required outside intervention at taxpayer expense. This is not laudable behavior.

That’s easier to say in hindsight than in foresight. Once things go bad, it’s probably better to have the cops handle the situation than private contractors.

There is room for argument over whether they should have anticipated the size of the crowd, and how many security goons they should have had to control the “aggressive pushing,” and maybe what physical security would have been appropriate (cattle barriers?). I certainly don’t have the answer to those questions.

But it sounds to me like the near riot could not readily be anticipated.

So, at what head count in my 50-year-anniversary backyard family reunion do I have to hire secuirty ? 50 ? 100 ?

Depends on how rowdy your family gets — that is, whether you believe they will cause a disturbance that requires security. If you trust them to behave themselves (and if it’s your backyard), then obviously zero.

Are you trying to interpret my words as uncharitably as possible or what? I really don’t get it — the mall management and the record company knew or should have known that there would be crowd control issues (since obviously the fans were not as well behaved as your family) that endangered/injured the participants. They did not take adequate precautions and, as a foreseeable result, the situation required outside intervention at taxpayer expense. This is not laudable behavior.

So you want private security contractors (and off-duty police perhaps outside their jurisdictions) having the same authority as actual, on-duty officers? No thanks!

Security can be a guessing game. How much is enough? PeteP’s reunion would have been fine with no security at all, until Uncle Albert got sideways with Uncle Bill and started that brawl. And who would have guessed that Aunt Mazie would go off her meds and start throwing beer mugs at passing cars?

Private security and unruly crowds is another nightmare. I’m not sure who’s in more danger at that time. At least they don’t usually employ people like me, with cudgels and pick handles.

So, at what head count in my 50-year-anniversary backyard family reunion do I have to hire secuirty ? 50 ? 100 ?

Oh, and (IMO, YMMV) anyone can have a gathering of people on any private property that they desire (with the consent of the owner, naturally) and under whatever terms are mutually agreeable. Insofar as they ask nothing from me, I ask nothing from them (common law nuisance notwithstanding).

Oren: Why should the good people of [edit: Nassau] county have to provide bouncers for a Canadian heartthrob that is drowning in money, again?

Because we don’t have separate sets of laws – one for “Canadian heartthrobs that are drowning in money” – and one for everyone else, some of which are not drowning in money, but might desire to have a gathering of people.

Why should the good people of [edit: Nassau] county have to provide bouncers for a Canadian heartthrob that is drowning in money, again?

Dennis N: Just Dropping By, I fail to see “or fails to …” or similar language in the statute. This implies to me that the obstruction must be a positive act. I don’t see how not Tweeting is an obstruction under the statute.

I’m not saying that the charge is legitimate. I’m just pointing out that “obstructing governmental administration” isn’t synonymous with “obstruction of justice” under New York law.

The crime here is abusive arrest and prosecution. TWB’s (Thugs With Badges) just hate it when people don’t assume positions of respectful obeisance immediately on seeing their presence. Oh, and they love to shift blame as well, for their own inability to carry out their job.

NY CLS Penal § 195.05. Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor’s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

NY CLS Penal § 195.07. Obstructing governmental administration in the first degree

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration in the first degree when he commits the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree by means of interfering with a telecommunications system thereby causing serious physical injury to another person.

Obstructing governmental administration in the first degree is a class E felony.

What’s the weather like on the cops’ planet?

In any sane legal system, there would be no confusion between passive non-cooperation and active obstruction.

I doubt that showing up at the local shopping mall, or even announcing that you might, makes you liable for crowd control at said location during your visit.

What if he announces that he’ll be there, and then doesn’t show up ? Is he liable for the behavior of 3,000 teenage girls at a location he’s never even been to ? Based on ‘he said he might go there’ ?

Come on …..

The po-po are Soooooo out of line here …..