“I agree following them would be inappropriate and could constitute harassment. But isn’t it just that they simply crossed the street to eat at a different restaurant? I can’t say that this constitutes “following them” or ‘stalking’. If they walked many blocks, or drove in cars, I might see it differently.”
Everything about their behavior supports that this was harassment. It appears they knowingly accepted their reservation and decided to let them come in so they could try to publicly humiliate them. That’s not criminal, but it is breach of contract, if that is how it played out.
Then they kicked them out, essentially saying, “Stay away from us. We don’t want to associate with you.” But then they proceeded to follow them to their next location. Unless a person is following in order to stop the commission a crime or report the whereabouts of a criminal whom they witnessed commit a crime, this is stalking. A person might follow someone to tell them there is a safety issue with their car or some similar reason to HELP that person, under the assumption a reasonable person would be glad they did so. But this is not that. It is harassment, plain and simple. They can’t hide behind free speech. This issue is not what they said. No one is stopping them from speaking out or going somewhere public to do so.
I don’t know if the second restaurant was across the street or a few blocks away. In my opinion, either way, even if they went next door and to a place that shared the same parking area, and they didn’t even move their car, following them is stalking and harassment.
But what I read indicated that Sarah and her husband went home, and the rest of the group they were with included liberals. So, an side note, I think this strategy of harassment, regardless of its legal ramifications, is going to backfire big time. They will cause a lot of traditional Democrats to switch their votes or at least stay home. Can you imagine what such a person must think? Many people never really give a lot of thought to their political positions. Many simply say their families always voted Democrat, so they will too. But when nutcases like this harass fellow Democrats and demand that they join the nutcases in protest or be shunned from society, a lot of them are going to be very turned off.
“You mentioned restrictions on police - that stems directly from our civil rights against tyrannical behavior by government officials. Those do not apply to private citizens and likewise private citizens have greater protections against harassment.”
That’s not entirely correct. A police officer has the same right as anyone else to go to a public place and exercise free speech. But they can not do so on the clock or in uniform.
But when it comes to following a person or arresting a person, police have greater latitude to do so than private citizens. You could flag a person down to let him know he has a broken tail light. A police officer could force him to pull over. You can make a citizen’s arrest if you witness someone commit certain crimes (in Texas these crimes must be severe enough to carry a minimum sentence of a year in jail). However, a police officer only needs reasonable suspicion to arrest such a person.
In some states you must have a private investigators’ license to follow a person in order to investigate him, and there must be a reason for doing so. But neither private citizens not private investigators have the same latitude as law enforcement.
A public official may be subject to greater scrutiny than the rest of us. They may have less recourse when it comes to criticism. But they also generally enjoy greater security. Sort of a trade off when it comes to “equal protection” under the law.
“And if anyone did resort to violence because of her remarks to ‘surround, push back’ she might find out what some of those consequences are. She was certainly very cavalier about her comments.”
Agreed. I think a lot of these actions and words are legally defensible but are also borderline illegal. What Waters said is not the same as outright advocating violence, which could land her in prison. But even her borderline comments were enough to earn a rebuke from members of her own party.
The left is bruising for a fight they think they want. But, as President Trump responded, they better be careful what they wish for.
harassment is a crime, they need to be prosecuted.
I think they have reached their climax. The left, and certainly the Dems, now need to ratchet it down for their own political survival. Despite what the media reports, the Democrats are 1 state house away from giving the GOP unfettered ability to Amend the Constitution without needing a single Dem vote.
While I don’t think we need any Amendments, the point is clear. Obama blew the greatest opportunity his party had since WW2. He had the WH and his party had both houses of Congress. And in their hubris they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ushered in a republican wave. I think you are absolutely correct, the Dems have nothing to gain from any of this nonsense. It is about as fruitful as calling the electorate “irredeemable deplorables” and “bitter people who cling to guns and bibles”. It won’t gain them one single vote, will probably turn some voters away, but will rile up their base. But this becomes a circular argument of diminishing returns. Red meat for the left is not good politics for the Dem party.