Have to go to the bathroom? Not during God Bless America at Yankees' Stadium

[IDrinkaRum]

We have a rule! You *have* to stay in the Stadium while "God Bless America" is being played

Yankees fan is ejected from stadium when he tries to go out to the bathroom during the 7-th inning stretch. NYPD cop pins him against wall and throws him out because the poor guy needed to empty his bladder.

Fun trivia: Yankees' Stadium has a rule that you have to stay in your seats while "God Bless America" is playing, no matter if you have a small bladder or a bladder infection.

[Boozy]

Enjoy your totalitarian regime, my friends.

[Pedersen]

Wow. Now that's a bit extreme, don't you think Boozy?

A private organization puts in place a rule about how they do things, police officers enforce said rule, and now it's a totalitarian regime?

I do happen to agree that America has lost its luster (to put it mildly). But, come on, using this as an example? What next? Calling it a Neo-Nazi fascist dictatorship over Target's return policies?

Is the rule stupid? Yes.

Is the way the cop enforced it even more wrong? Yes.

Was his comment on ejecting the fan completely out of line? Yes.

Does that make it into a totalitarian regime? Only if all Canadians live in snow-covered igloos (to use an example from another thread).

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

A private organization puts in place a rule about how they do things, police officers enforce said rule, and now it's a totalitarian regime?

I'm not so sure that his comment was that extreme.

A police officer that enforces a rule with physical force when the rule is just that...the rule of a private organization and not a local, county, state, or federal law...is extreme and unwarranted.

Yes, he had every right to escort the person out of the stadium for breaking the set rules of the stadium, but in this day and age of post 9/11...tales of this are becoming more and more common.

And this is just the least of the problems. Are you aware of the fact that if a terrorist happens to have the same name or used an alias of someone else, ANYONE with that name is on the no-fly list. There are babies out there who weren't even little sperm swimming around daddy's testicles when 9/11 occurred, and they can't fly because some terrorist used "Robert Smith" as his alias when he hijacked the plane.

This list? There is no way to know if you're on it until you try to fly (and ruin your vacation plans) and getting off? You'd have better odds attacking Fort Knox with two bananas and a rubber chicken.

Yes this incident might not warrant his remark, but taken in whole the civil rights taken from us by homeland insecurity...it's not extreme enough.

M

[lordlundar]

Wow. Now that's a bit extreme, don't you think Boozy?

A private organization puts in place a rule about how they do things, police officers enforce said rule, and now it's a totalitarian regime?

I'd like to ask you where in the local, state or federal law books that it is illegal to move around Yankee stadium during god bless America. The police are supposed to be there to enforce the law, not a rule made up by the organization to declare that everyone in the stadium is patriotic.

If the organization wants to enforce their rules, that what private security is for. The police should not have been involved unless the person broke the law.

[Pedersen]

Find a law which shows that? Nope, not going to happen. You and I both know that.

However, there is another law that matters: trespassing.

Here we have a very simple situation: Rules state that all game attendees are to remain in their seats during this time. Failure to do so gets you ejected from the stadium. Failure to leave the stadium under these circumstances makes you into a trespasser.

Person who broke the rules became a trespasser, and was therefore ejected by the police (who are now enforcing the law). The fact is that the owners of Yankee Stadium have every right to file criminal trespassing charges against this man.

Again: Does it suck? Yes. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it the rules the customer agreed to? Yes.

This is not a part of the slippery slope of loss of civil liberties. There's plenty else to be upset about. And, instead, we're going to focus on some guy breaking the rules and getting tossed out of the stadium for doing so.

So, how's Paris Hilton's driving record doing?

[lordlundar]

According to the article, there were no security. There was a police officer who confronted him in uniform and ordered him back to the seat. When he refused citing a personal emergency, he get's tossed out and told to "get out of the country." Seriously, what if there was a family emergency? He's going to be tossed in jail because he didn't salute a song?

That cop was abusing his authority, nothing more. This isn't exactly a maybe situation. There are exceptions to every rule and this qualifies. Given the choice between risking my health and standing for a song, I'll pick my health.

And as for your trespassing argument, the choice becomes staying there against my will or going to jail. There is a term for it; ENTRAPMENT.

[Pedersen]

According to the article, there were no security.

I've re-read the article. And a couple of the linked articles. No where did I find a single bit of text which stated that there was no security. Please cite where you see it.

In fact, in one of the linked articles, the following quote appears:

The rule is enforced by ushers, stadium security and the NYPD.

Most definitely the opposite of "no security".

There was a police officer who confronted him in uniform and ordered him back to the seat. When he refused citing a personal emergency, he get's tossed out and told to "get out of the country." Seriously, what if there was a family emergency? He's going to be tossed in jail because he didn't salute a song?

Now we've gone from "going to the bathroom" to "it was a personal emergency". For some people it can be an emergency, definitely. However, I strongly doubt it was for him. Why? None of the linked articles mentions a loss of bladder control or rectal control. If he had let, that would have been given a bit more placement.

No, instead, he was able to hold it long enough to be taken from his seat to the front doors and ejected from the stadium, and then go someplace else to relieve himself. Stadiums that seat so many thousand people are big. That took some time. No, that was not a personal emergency.

And what if there was a family emergency? Then he got what he was looking for, didn't he? He got out of the stadium. Was he going to be arrested? Incredibly unlikely. After all, the offense would be trespassing, and the owners of Yankee stadium would have to file charges for him to be arrested. Instead, he'd just be tossed out of the stadium, as happened to him.

That cop was abusing his authority, nothing more. This isn't exactly a maybe situation. There are exceptions to every rule and this qualifies. Given the choice between risking my health and standing for a song, I'll pick my health.

Hmmm... Seems the police have a different take on it:

The officers observed a male standing on his seat, cursing, using inappropriate language and acting in a disorderly manner while reeking of alcohol, and decided to eject him rather than subject others to his offensive behavior.

Now it's the word of the cop versus the word of the ejectee. And if the cop is telling the truth, then the cop did a favor to everybody else by removing the loud, abusive, drunken, swearing man from the stands.

And as for your trespassing argument, the choice becomes staying there against my will or going to jail. There is a term for it; ENTRAPMENT.

Actually, entrapment is defined as enticing and encouraging someone to break a law they would not otherwise have broken. A secondary portion of that definition includes the intent to arrest that person for breaking that law.

A good example would be a police officer dressed as a prostitute and begging people to give him/her money in exchange for sex, and refusing to give up when they say no, trying to force it to happen.

That is entrapment.

The closest to a law being broken that you are discussing is improper/illegal detainment. However, that's not occurring. He has a choice: He can remain in his seat for the duration of the song, or he can break the rules and find himself ejected from the stadium. Should he choose to try to break the rules and stay in the stadium, he is now trespassing.

Don't like it? That's fine. There's no law requiring you to go to the game. Don't.

As much as you might like to make it out to be one, this is not a civil liberties violation. It is not a legal violation. It is just the enforcement of a stupid rule.

The only part that the cop did that was wrong was in manhandling the guy. Once the guy refused to return to his seat, he was now considered an ejectee. The cop should have escorted him out the door, nothing more. And the dialog should have been "I'm sorry, but the owners of Yankee stadium have set these rules. By refusing to follow them, you are now ejected from the stadium. I'm simply making sure that you actually leave."

But, rather than focus on the actual issues that this country has, we're going to focus on one guy who is pissed because he broke the rules, got called out, and then tossed out.

Pathetic.

[daleduke17]

I'd like to ask you where in the local, state or federal law books that it is illegal to move around Yankee stadium during god bless America. The police are supposed to be there to enforce the law, not a rule made up by the organization to declare that everyone in the stadium is patriotic.

If the organization wants to enforce their rules, that what private security is for. The police should not have been involved unless the person broke the law.

The police are hired by the organization to provide security, so they enforce the rules of the Yankees organization. Nothing totalitarian, Nazi or anything about it.

[Flyndaran]

Private establishments' rules don't trump civil liberties.
I'm pretty sure biological necessities qualify as human rights.
You and your wet pants may differ in opinion.

The man does not need to have a serious crippling disorder to get to use a freakin' bathroom. It's none of our business what his medical history may or may not be.

How much must our basic human rights be trampled upon before the public wakes up and demands them back?

[kibbles]

I don't think Boozy's comment is extreme at all. IMO, it is probably not extreme enough. Trying to stop someone from using the bathroom is bordering on the scary and nutzo IMO.

[purplecat41877]

I believe this guy should've been allowed to use the restroom especially if it couldn't wait. The stadium needs to be more flexible over this type of situation.

[Bloodsoul]

Replace every seat in the stadium with a silent toilet. Problem solved.

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha, that reminds of the lawyer guy in Idiocracy who's La-Z-Boy was a toilet.

"Go away, 'batin!"

[Slytovhand]

Yeps, I'm with Boozy et al!

Sorry Pedersen, but the cop was out of line.

The police are at such events to enforce the law - not a rule of a company. Yes, it may have been 'trespassing' - but only if some Yankees Stadium official had first requested the individual remain in his seat. Then he could have requested the officer to remove the person for 'trespassing'. The cop, prior to this, may have only had an interest in informing the person of such a thing - not enforcing a law that has yet to, technically, be broken.

It would be like (though obviously quite different) to say a store has a policy of not serving people wearing red shirts. The police on hand have no right to tell a person to remove themselves from the shop for wearing a red shirt, but if one of the staff asks the person to leave, then, and only then, does the law come into place.

Granted, as your second article indicates, not all is perhaps as it should be, so that's something completely different. And yes, it's a bloody stupid rule - what next, no talking during the national anthem?? (oh, I'm not sure if you don't already have that, but it'd be funny on this continent )

I, for one, would be slightly interested to see if the Civil Liberties people push this, and what the end result would be.

BTW - while that second article does indeed say 'staff, security and police', that in itself doesn't automatically mean that the security were on hand at the time... just nit-picking. (oh, yes, the quote may be wrong, I'm on the 2nd page....).

Surely this goes against an individual's pursuit of happiness?


Slyt