1a auditor guilty of trespass (Page 23 of 24)
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12136
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: I thought we were talking about one judge getting creative. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: But I told you not to contact her. You don’t have any ties to his mother. The agency investigator has ties to the trooper in question. So if I played bridge with her, I'd be good to go? Do you think 12 reasonable people would agree with that? I thought we were talking about one judge getting creative. We're on page 22. We're not talking about anything anymore, this is an endurance contest to see who can out nitpick the other. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: So that would apply to any investigative journalist then, correct? Surely they know they wouldn’t be welcome at the home of a contractor that screwed over customers to ask uncomfortable questions. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: If property or trespassing isn't mentioned, why would that be notice? Because Connecticut's trespassing law is based on the trespasser's subjective knowledge that he is not welcome and has no specific notification requirement, obviously. So that would apply to any investigative journalist then, correct? Surely they know they wouldn’t be welcome at the home of a contractor that screwed over customers to ask uncomfortable questions. Did all of them get in a physical altercation and then file their own lawsuit first? If so, maybe. If not, probably not. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
233
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12138
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: So that would apply to any investigative journalist then, correct? Surely they know they wouldn’t be welcome at the home of a contractor that screwed over customers to ask uncomfortable questions. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: If property or trespassing isn't mentioned, why would that be notice? Because Connecticut's trespassing law is based on the trespasser's subjective knowledge that he is not welcome and has no specific notification requirement, obviously. So that would apply to any investigative journalist then, correct? Surely they know they wouldn’t be welcome at the home of a contractor that screwed over customers to ask uncomfortable questions. It applies to all investigative journalists, door to door salesmen, girls scouts, police officers, and indeed to all people regardless of their profession: if they have the subjective knowledge that they are not welcome on someone's property, then entering that property is trespassing in CT. You may be confused about the difference between visits that someone knows may be unwelcome, and visits that someone knows are unwelcome. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Your statement about whether the property owner would invite you on the property as a test for revocation is just plain fucking wrong and if you think that you need to read some more.  You don’t even have to read Jardines, which apparently you didn’t. Just Google the question. “Yes, an implied social license is generally revoked if the visitor has actual knowledge that the resident does not want them there for their specific purpose under property and constitutional law (such as the standards outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines), the "implied social license" to approach a home's front door and knock is entirely rooted in customary social norms. Because it is an implied custom, it can be customized or entirely withdrawn by the resident.” Guess who, by his own admission, had actual knowledge the resident did not want him on his property for the specific purpose he was there? You have been one of the most, if not the most, incorrect poster in this thread. You can curse and throw around big words, but it doesn’t make you right. |
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. No one has gleefully defended the actions of the officer prior to the trespass. Zero. None. That isn’t even the subject of the thread. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
234
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. The officer. Never said the actions (assault). |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1465
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Fahey's actions towards Reyes in the prior encounters is where actual definitive crimes that could easily and objectively be prosecuted occurred- yet the agressor was 100% insulated and it was swept under the rug on multiple occasions by ALL the LE involved until Reyes managed to lodge some written complaints with IA and they couldn't as easily ignore it. Even then, nothing was done- they investigated themselves... blah blah blah. Just go ahead and admit it- that there's a group of people who are just above the law. But what they COULDNT stop was the public fallout of Reyes posting the videos and commentary for ALL to see. They couldnt discredit it because the videos were unassailable. The backlash from that caused Fahey enough trouble that he said 'fuck it' and put in his retirement papers. That's why Reyes was so dangerous and something had to be done about him. They pulled the gloves off and rolled him up in two questionable trespasses in a short span of time for things auditors and journalists do every day in this country and had judges to make it stick. He had got on that police union guy's ass also and started uncovering shit and they were powerful enough that they managed to put enough of some kind of pressure on social media establishment to get him- and a bunch of other 1st Am auditors demonetized. 100% percent retaliatory to shut him up and get him off their ass. Once again, if some shady shit wasnt going on, and his investigations turned up nothing, he'd get bored. It's not that I'm a real big fan of Reyes as a person. I don't like some of the things he does. But I am a pretty big fan of civil rights, accountability, and transparency and I do feel he makes a very strong effort to stay inside the law. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
235
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By RLR350: No one has gleefully defended the actions of the officer prior to the trespass. Zero. None. That isn’t even the subject of the thread. Originally Posted By RLR350: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. No one has gleefully defended the actions of the officer prior to the trespass. Zero. None. That isn’t even the subject of the thread. Second poster that added “actions” to my post. Never said posters are defending his actions, but are definitely defending the corrupt and abusive officer. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
236
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Fahey's actions towards Reyes in the prior encounters is where actual definitive crimes that could easily and objectively be prosecuted occurred- yet the agressor was 100% insulated and it was swept under the rug on multiple occasions by ALL the LE involved until Reyes managed to lodge some written complaints with IA and they couldn't as easily ignore it. Even then, nothing was done- they investigated themselves... blah blah blah. Just go ahead and admit it- that there's a group of people who are just above the law. But what they COULDNT stop was the public fallout of Reyes posting the videos and commentary for ALL to see. They couldnt discredit it because the videos were unassailable. The backlash from that caused Fahey enough trouble that he said 'fuck it' and put in his retirement papers. That's why Reyes was so dangerous and something had to be done about him. They pulled the gloves off and rolled him up in two questionable trespasses in a short span of time for things auditors and journalists do every day in this country and had judges to make it stick. He had got on that police union guy's ass also and started uncovering shit and they were powerful enough that they managed to put enough of some kind of pressure on social media establishment to get him- and a bunch of other 1st Am auditors demonetized. 100% percent retaliatory to shut him up and get him off their ass. Once again, if some shady shit wasnt going on, and his investigations turned up nothing, he'd get bored. It's not that I'm a real big fan of Reyes as a person. I don't like some of the things he does. But I am a pretty big fan of civil rights, accountability, and transparency and I do feel he makes a very strong effort to stay inside the law. But But But the judge found him guilty!!!!!! 
|
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12139
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: The officer. Never said the actions (assault). Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. The officer. Never said the actions (assault). Fantastic. Who defended him, in whatever way you mean "defend?" |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. He was charged, found guilty and served a deferred sentence… I’ve said multiple times now. They’re both idiots who deserved their charges |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1466
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By RLR350: You don’t even have to read Jardines, which apparently you didn’t. Just Google the question. “Yes, an implied social license is generally revoked if the visitor has actual knowledge that the resident does not want them there for their specific purpose under property and constitutional law (such as the standards outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines), the "implied social license" to approach a home's front door and knock is entirely rooted in customary social norms. Because it is an implied custom, it can be customized or entirely withdrawn by the resident.” Guess who, by his own admission, had actual knowledge the resident did not want him on his property for the specific purpose he was there? You have been one of the most, if not the most, incorrect poster in this thread. You can curse and throw around big words, but it doesn’t make you right. The social license permits the ordinary approach to the front door even when the visitor's purpose is unwelcome. What matters is whether the visitor has been given SUFFICIENTLY clear notice that the ordinary license has actually been withdrawn—not merely that the visitor knows the occupant would prefer not to speak with him. Reyes can suspect he will not be welcomed and still go under customary implied license. Is a journalist going to a door to conduct an interview NOT a customary social norm that would trigger an implied license? It surely is. Is a journalist doing that ever welcomed? I doubt it, yet they don't seem to get locked up for it often (hardly ever). It's a matter of degree that I am arguing. I see your argument as clear as day, but am merely saying I disagree with the judges outright rejection of the implied license which is entirely based on Reyes being automatically disqualified just on the existence of the previous encounters and him admitting he would not be welcome. Nowhere has it ever come to light that he was ACTUALLY TOLD or put on anything like actual notice for him to legally KNOW the license was revoked. That's why the signage issue was so important here- it was something that could function as actual notice IF it were the right sign. It really wasn't, but they sure made it be good enough in this case. If he had walked past actual exclusionary signs I wouldnt argue the point. But that sign was weak, and not sufficient in my opinion. Sure they got him on it. But, this isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I don't think it's nice you laughin.... |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12140
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: The social license permits the ordinary approach to the front door even when the visitor's purpose is unwelcome. What matters is whether the visitor has been given SUFFICIENTLY clear notice that the ordinary license has actually been withdrawn—not merely that the visitor knows the occupant would prefer not to speak with him. Reyes can suspect he will not be welcomed and still go under customary implied license. Is a journalist going to a door to conduct an interview NOT a customary social norm that would trigger an implied license? It surely is. Is a journalist doing that ever welcomed? I doubt it, yet they don't seem to get locked up for it often (hardly ever). It's a matter of degree that I am arguing. I see your argument as clear as day, but am merely saying I disagree with the judges outright rejection of the implied license which is entirely based on Reyes being automatically disqualified just on the existence of the previous encounters and him admitting he would not be welcome. Nowhere has it ever come to light that he was ACTUALLY TOLD or put on anything like actual notice for him to legally KNOW the license was revoked. That's why the signage issue was so important here- it was something that could function as actual notice IF it were the right sign. It really wasn't, but they sure made it be good enough in this case. If he had walked past actual exclusionary signs I wouldnt argue the point. But that sign was weak, and not sufficient in my opinion. Sure they got him on it. But, this isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I don't think it's funny you laughin.... Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By RLR350: You don’t even have to read Jardines, which apparently you didn’t. Just Google the question. “Yes, an implied social license is generally revoked if the visitor has actual knowledge that the resident does not want them there for their specific purpose under property and constitutional law (such as the standards outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines), the "implied social license" to approach a home's front door and knock is entirely rooted in customary social norms. Because it is an implied custom, it can be customized or entirely withdrawn by the resident.” Guess who, by his own admission, had actual knowledge the resident did not want him on his property for the specific purpose he was there? You have been one of the most, if not the most, incorrect poster in this thread. You can curse and throw around big words, but it doesn’t make you right. The social license permits the ordinary approach to the front door even when the visitor's purpose is unwelcome. What matters is whether the visitor has been given SUFFICIENTLY clear notice that the ordinary license has actually been withdrawn—not merely that the visitor knows the occupant would prefer not to speak with him. Reyes can suspect he will not be welcomed and still go under customary implied license. Is a journalist going to a door to conduct an interview NOT a customary social norm that would trigger an implied license? It surely is. Is a journalist doing that ever welcomed? I doubt it, yet they don't seem to get locked up for it often (hardly ever). It's a matter of degree that I am arguing. I see your argument as clear as day, but am merely saying I disagree with the judges outright rejection of the implied license which is entirely based on Reyes being automatically disqualified just on the existence of the previous encounters and him admitting he would not be welcome. Nowhere has it ever come to light that he was ACTUALLY TOLD or put on anything like actual notice for him to legally KNOW the license was revoked. That's why the signage issue was so important here- it was something that could function as actual notice IF it were the right sign. It really wasn't, but they sure made it be good enough in this case. If he had walked past actual exclusionary signs I wouldnt argue the point. But that sign was weak, and not sufficient in my opinion. Sure they got him on it. But, this isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I don't think it's funny you laughin.... Why do you have so little regard for property rights? Why do you think the burden ought to be on the homeowner to pick out and exclude specific people from entering his land, rather than the burden be on the intruder to make reasonably sure that he is not unwelcome? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
237
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Fantastic. Who defended him, in whatever way you mean "defend?" Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. The officer. Never said the actions (assault). Fantastic. Who defended him, in whatever way you mean "defend?" They seem to be awfully pleased at the bullshit guilty verdict in support of an abusive officers that assaulted and innocent, unarmed journalist with a million+ followers and threw him out of a public building then assaulted him for showing up to request his disciplinary records. Fahey should have caught criminal and a federal case for that. Nope, nothing. Then maniac Fahey pulls a gun, threatens to shoot him and spits on him, once again on camera. Minor offense, zero punishment. All that and posters flocking here “well durrrr he should’a known he wasn’t welcome” instead of being a reasonable person and thinking “holy shit fahey is a violent maniac how the fuck is he not in jail”, hanging your hat on a bullshit word twist and a judge turning a “private road” sign into a “no trespassing” sign just to protect their own. That and the “fuck the auditor” theme from some as well. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12141
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: They seem to be awfully pleased at the bullshit guilty verdict in support of an abusive officers that assaulted and innocent, unarmed journalist with a million+ followers and threw him out of a public building then assaulted him for showing up to request his disciplinary records. Fahey should have caught criminal and a federal case for that. Nope, nothing. Then maniac Fahey pulls a gun, threatens to shoot him and spits on him, once again on camera. Minor offense, zero punishment. All that and posters flocking here “well durrrr he should’a known he wasn’t welcome” instead of being a reasonable person and thinking “holy shit fahey is a violent maniac how the fuck is he not in jail”, hanging your hat on a bullshit word twist and a judge turning a “private road” sign into a “no trespassing” sign just to protect their own. That and the “fuck the auditor” theme from some as well. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. The officer. Never said the actions (assault). Fantastic. Who defended him, in whatever way you mean "defend?" They seem to be awfully pleased at the bullshit guilty verdict in support of an abusive officers that assaulted and innocent, unarmed journalist with a million+ followers and threw him out of a public building then assaulted him for showing up to request his disciplinary records. Fahey should have caught criminal and a federal case for that. Nope, nothing. Then maniac Fahey pulls a gun, threatens to shoot him and spits on him, once again on camera. Minor offense, zero punishment. All that and posters flocking here “well durrrr he should’a known he wasn’t welcome” instead of being a reasonable person and thinking “holy shit fahey is a violent maniac how the fuck is he not in jail”, hanging your hat on a bullshit word twist and a judge turning a “private road” sign into a “no trespassing” sign just to protect their own. That and the “fuck the auditor” theme from some as well. "They." Name names, and quote quotes. You won't, because you can't. Nobody has defended the shitbird cop's actions outside of defending his property from a trespasser. Literally nobody. 23 pages in this thread times 50 posts per page, and you can't quote a single person saying that Fahey's actions in the public building were acceptable. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1467
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Why does the implied license even exist? Either it does, or it doesn't. This case just smacks of them interpreting a pretty subjective law to say whatever they wanted it to flying against tradition and case law to suit their ends. A poster nailed it earlier by saying if Fahey had been in some other line of work we wouldnt even be arguing this. I'd prefer absolute property rights. I have some property I cant keep m'fers off of try as I might. I've found the law in my area isn't much help either. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1468
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Why does the implied license even exist? Either it does, or it doesn't. This case just smacks of them interpreting a pretty subjective law to say whatever they wanted it to flying against tradition and case law to suit their ends. A poster nailed it earlier by saying if Fahey had been in some other line of work we wouldnt even be arguing this. I'd prefer absolute property rights. I have some property I cant keep m'fers off of try as I might. I've found the law in my area isn't much help either. It really doesn't |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yeah that literally means sometimes the reason is welcome, and sometimes it is not- and that's ok too. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Sometimes unwelcome. Jardines says "sometimes unwelcome." Yeah that literally means sometimes the reason is welcome, and sometimes it is not- and that's ok too. Yes, that's what I've been trying to get you to understand: that the customary license only covers contact that is sometimes welcome. Door to door salesmen are unwelcome a lot of the time, but sometimes they are welcome. They have a customary license to knock on your door because there's no way for them to know whether they will be unwelcome or welcome until they knock. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1469
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brosnarp: Yes, that's what I've been trying to get you to understand: that the customary license only covers contact that is sometimes welcome. Door to door salesmen are unwelcome a lot of the time, but sometimes they are welcome. They have a customary license to knock on your door because there's no way for them to know whether they will be unwelcome or welcome until they knock. That's where I disagree. You are saying: Knocking is customary and allowed because the visitor cannot know whether or not he is welcome. Your interpretation is too narrow. I'm saying it says: knocking itself is a routine activity, and is allowed EVEN WHEN it is sometimes unwelcome. It's plain english. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12143
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: That's where I disagree. You are saying: Knocking is customary and allowed because the visitor cannot know whether or not he is welcome. Your interpretation is too narrow. I'm saying it says: knocking itself is a routine activity, and is allowed EVEN WHEN it is sometimes unwelcome. It's plain english. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Yes, that's what I've been trying to get you to understand: that the customary license only covers contact that is sometimes welcome. Door to door salesmen are unwelcome a lot of the time, but sometimes they are welcome. They have a customary license to knock on your door because there's no way for them to know whether they will be unwelcome or welcome until they knock. That's where I disagree. You are saying: Knocking is customary and allowed because the visitor cannot know whether or not he is welcome. Your interpretation is too narrow. I'm saying it says: knocking itself is a routine activity, and is allowed EVEN WHEN it is sometimes unwelcome. It's plain english. But if a reasonable person would judge that they are NOT welcome, as opposed to "sometimes unwelcome," what is their legal status then? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: That's where I disagree. You are saying: Knocking is customary and allowed because the visitor cannot know whether or not he is welcome. Your interpretation is too narrow. I'm saying it says: knocking itself is a routine activity, and is allowed EVEN WHEN it is sometimes unwelcome. It's plain english. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Yes, that's what I've been trying to get you to understand: that the customary license only covers contact that is sometimes welcome. Door to door salesmen are unwelcome a lot of the time, but sometimes they are welcome. They have a customary license to knock on your door because there's no way for them to know whether they will be unwelcome or welcome until they knock. That's where I disagree. You are saying: Knocking is customary and allowed because the visitor cannot know whether or not he is welcome. Your interpretation is too narrow. I'm saying it says: knocking itself is a routine activity, and is allowed EVEN WHEN it is sometimes unwelcome. It's plain english. Yes, it is plain English. Yes, knocking is allowed when it is sometimes unwelcome. Knocking is not allowed when it is known to be unwelcome. |
|
Originally Posted By Kiltakaze: He was charged, found guilty and served a deferred sentence… I’ve said multiple times now. They’re both idiots who deserved their charges As I explained in another post, Connecticut's Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR) diversionary program does NOT involve a guilty plea the way other states do. First time offenders who apply for AR would have already entered a not guilty plea. If they do not successfully complete their probation, they would then progress towards trial. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
238
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: "They." Name names, and quote quotes. You won't, because you can't. Nobody has defended the shitbird cop's actions outside of defending his property from a trespasser. Literally nobody. 23 pages in this thread times 50 posts per page, and you can't quote a single person saying that Fahey's actions in the public building were acceptable. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He was TOLD by Fahey on their previous encounter that THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS was private property, and he had no business there- and he could not enter THE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. Nothing was said about Fahey, or Fahey's residence. Do you think a 'big bad-ass trooper' like Fahey would ever stoop to telling someone like Reyes to stay away from him like he was scared or intimidated? Yeah right. Then, a few minutes later after Reyes explained what had happened another state cop let Reyes into the building (as they should have). Fahey wanted him gone because he had stated he was there to requesting Fahey's disciplinary records. Fahey was told by other cops that Reyes was outside and that Reyes was there requesting the disciplinary records and Fahey retaliated by slamming the door on him and assaulting him. If Reyes wanted, he could probably wipe the floor with Fahey- he's about a foot taller, younger, and probably has 50 lbs on him. He showed complete restraint in all of their encounters. It’s interesting to see members here so gleefully defend an abusive officer that assaulted a journalist trying to get his discipline records in the lobby of a public building. Funny how there was no arrest for that assault on video, other officers and the “system” protected Fahey. Yet the same members can’t fathom for a second that the local judge would do the same. I guess we’ll get more information in the future if Reyes appeals. Who gleefully defended the officer's actions prior to the trespass being discussed in this thread? Seriously, who did that? I'll put them on ignore. The officer. Never said the actions (assault). Fantastic. Who defended him, in whatever way you mean "defend?" They seem to be awfully pleased at the bullshit guilty verdict in support of an abusive officers that assaulted and innocent, unarmed journalist with a million+ followers and threw him out of a public building then assaulted him for showing up to request his disciplinary records. Fahey should have caught criminal and a federal case for that. Nope, nothing. Then maniac Fahey pulls a gun, threatens to shoot him and spits on him, once again on camera. Minor offense, zero punishment. All that and posters flocking here “well durrrr he should’a known he wasn’t welcome” instead of being a reasonable person and thinking “holy shit fahey is a violent maniac how the fuck is he not in jail”, hanging your hat on a bullshit word twist and a judge turning a “private road” sign into a “no trespassing” sign just to protect their own. That and the “fuck the auditor” theme from some as well. "They." Name names, and quote quotes. You won't, because you can't. Nobody has defended the shitbird cop's actions outside of defending his property from a trespasser. Literally nobody. 23 pages in this thread times 50 posts per page, and you can't quote a single person saying that Fahey's actions in the public building were acceptable. For the 3rd time, since apparently many of you can’t read or comprehend. I did not say the officer’s actions. Since you want to ask me to for a quote, how about you quote me saying that people are defending the officer’s ACTIONS. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1470
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brosnarp: Yes, it is plain English. Yes, knocking is allowed when it is sometimes unwelcome. Knocking is not allowed when it is known to be unwelcome. That is not how how I interpret that sentence in Jardines. I interpret it as they can go knock- wanted or not- as long as what they are doing falls under normal social custom. A journalist knocking investigating a story is within that custom. In State v. Robinson the Connecticut Appellate Court said that Connecticut's trespass statutes permit an owner to deny public access thusly: through “words, signs or physical configuration”, and that the varying degrees of trespass depend partly upon “the extent to which the property owner has made plain his or her desire to exclude the uninvited.” Nobody has established in any way that Reyes had been TOLD. There was no physical configuration or barriers to him walking to the front door. None. That leaves the very weak 'Private Road' sign as the only thing possible to give Reyes the required actual knowledge notice. Reyes testified in court that he thought the Private road sign was a vehicular information type sign and did not understand it to exclude pedestrians. So, did he suspect he wouldn't be welcome? Yes, he suspected it. But did he KNOW in the sense as it pertains to legally binding matters that his implied license was revoked? With his testimony showing that he thought the sign was a vehicular notice (many on here have corroborated that that is how that sign is typically interpreted in their areas) I don't think they proved that he had actual notice sufficient for a conviction. That's where the "well, he should have known har har" gets carted out as a conversation ender. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1471
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Yes. He went there for the purposes of trespassing on private property in hopes of initiating another confrontation with the property owner. He was NOT there as the "innocent/neutral" journalist some of you are doing your best to portray him as. This. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1472
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Yes. He went there for the purposes of trespassing on private property in hopes of initiating another confrontation with the property owner. He was NOT there as the "innocent/neutral" journalist some of you are doing your best to portray him as. And your evidence for that supposition? |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: That is not how how I interpret that sentence in Jardines. I interpret it as they can go knock- wanted or not- as long as what they are doing falls under normal social custom. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: That is not how how I interpret that sentence in Jardines. I interpret it as they can go knock- wanted or not- as long as what they are doing falls under normal social custom. Any interpretation that leads you to believe that someone who knows he unwanted must be allowed in is ridiculous. "The rationale for the offense of criminal trespass is to protect property, and the privacy interest inherit in that property, from unwanted intruders." Originally Posted By Pioneer1: A journalist knocking investigating a story is within that custom. Not even Reyes pretends he was just there as a journalist; he testified that he was also there as an activist, which is why he brought the billboard truck. There is no social custom that allows someone to engage in activism against you from your property. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: In State v. Robinson the Connecticut Appellate Court said that Connecticut's trespass statutes permit an owner to deny public access thusly: through “words, signs or physical configuration”, and that the varying degrees of trespass depend partly upon “the extent to which the property owner has made plain his or her desire to exclude the uninvited.” Lol. Sure, let's compare Reyes to Robinson. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Nobody has established in any way that Reyes had been TOLD. No one told Robinson anything either, and his conviction was upheld. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: There was no physical configuration or barriers to him walking to the front door. None. Fahey's property is surrounded by a large hedge, similar to a wall, with the only opening being the private drive. In Robinson there was a fence with openings for foot traffic. The court held that fence, which did not provide a barrier to walking to the front door, was sufficient to prove enclosure. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: That leaves the very weak 'Private Road' sign as the only thing possible to give Reyes the required actual knowledge notice. The sign wasn't used as evidence that Reyes knew he was unwelcome; the sign was used as evidence that the property was posted or enclosed. Criminal trespassing 3 has two elements: knowledge of a lack of license and that the land was posted or enclosed. A private road sign notifies the public that the land beyond it is private, satisfying the requirement for posting in the same way as the gateless wall in Robinson. Reyes says that he had actual knowledge. Discussion of various ways the defendant could have received actual knowledge are moot when the defendant says that he had actual knowledge. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Reyes testified in court that he thought the Private road sign was a vehicular information type sign and did not understand it to exclude pedestrians. So, did he suspect he wouldn't be welcome? Yes, he suspected it. But did he KNOW in the sense as it pertains to legally binding matters that his implied license was revoked? With his testimony showing that he thought the sign was a vehicular notice (many on here have corroborated that that is how that sign is typically interpreted in their areas) I don't think they proved that he had actual notice sufficient for a conviction. That's where the "well, he should have known har har" gets carted out as a conversation ender. Reyes attempted an affirmative defense. CT law requires an affirmative defense to be based on a reasonable belief that the property owner would have granted him a license, not some dumb idea that private road signs only apply to vehicles or a stupid belief that you can enter property where you know you're unwelcome until the property owner says the magic words. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1473
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
I don't EVER want a cop on my property for any reason whatsoever. But the supreme court says they can come and knock and talk- and possibly make observations or gather evidence against me without a warrant or probable cause- because that's no more than "any normal citizen can do". How do you square that with what you are saying? |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I don't EVER want a cop on my property for any reason whatsoever. But the supreme court says they can come and knock and talk- and possibly make observations or gather evidence against me without a warrant or probable cause- because that's no more than "any normal citizen can do". How do you square that with what you are saying? Any given police officer has no way of knowing that you don't want cops on your property, so they have a reasonable belief that you would grant them a license or privilege to knock on your door. This isn't rocket science. |
|
Originally Posted By brosnarp: Yes, that's what I've been trying to get you to understand: that the customary license only covers contact that is sometimes welcome. Door to door salesmen are unwelcome a lot of the time, but sometimes they are welcome. They have a customary license to knock on your door because there's no way for them to know whether they will be unwelcome or welcome until they knock. That is an excellent explanation. Sometimes unwelcome doesn’t mean always unwelcome. Reyes’ purpose would always be unwelcome by anyone and he apparently even admitted that. Scalia explains this in Jardines in the discussion surrounding the “sometimes unwelcome” statement, which he annotates in parenthesis as if it’s almost sarcastic or in jest. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1474
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By RLR350: That is an excellent explanation. Sometimes unwelcome doesn’t mean always unwelcome. Reyes’ purpose would always be unwelcome by anyone and he apparently even admitted that. Scalia explains this in Jardines in the discussion surrounding the “sometimes unwelcome” statement, which he annotates in parenthesis as if it’s almost sarcastic or in jest. I'm still not convinced that your interpretation of the sometimes welcome statement is how it is meant. So, how would things have gone if Reyes had benefitted from a good attorney in the courtroom for the trial? Any different? |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I'm still not convinced that your interpretation of the sometimes welcome statement is how it is meant. So, how would things have gone if Reyes had benefitted from a good attorney in the courtroom for the trial? Any different? Then maybe you should read Scalia’s discussion in Jardines surrounding where the statement “even if sometimes unwelcome” came from. "To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police." I know you’re thinking Reyes didn’t have a metal detector or bloodhound. Think harder. It’s an analogy. Your second question isn’t worth debating. He didn’t have his own lawyer. Predicting the outcome of that hypothetical is useless. |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77567
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: And your evidence for that supposition? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Yes. He went there for the purposes of trespassing on private property in hopes of initiating another confrontation with the property owner. He was NOT there as the "innocent/neutral" journalist some of you are doing your best to portray him as. And your evidence for that supposition? Wasn't there a public event where everything was put on display and everyone had their time to make their arguments and someone was able to look at it and determine guilt or not? 
|
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1475
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Wasn't there a public event where everything was put on display and everyone had their time to make their arguments and someone was able to look at it and determine guilt or not? Well, that's kinda the point of contention in the thread- that one judge responsible sure did find him guilty. But did he get it right? Was actual justice served? Some say yes, some say it was kangaroo court. Will it withstand review by a higher court? It's interesting to me the different viewpoints and reasons. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1476
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By RLR350: Then maybe you should read Scalia’s discussion in Jardines surrounding where the statement “even if sometimes unwelcome” came from. "To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police." I know you’re thinking Reyes didn’t have a metal detector or bloodhound. Think harder. It’s an analogy. Your second question isn’t worth debating. He didn’t have his own lawyer. Predicting the outcome of that hypothetical is useless. Asking someone a question- basic communication- is well within customary social norms. A drug dog, bloodhound, or metal detector search is not. The first half of this thread lots of people were saying "dumbass tried to defend himself, what did he expect!" Would a good lawyer have made a difference? It's a valid question. If he appeals he will almost certainly retain the best lawyer he can find. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Asking someone a question- basic communication- is well within customary social norms. A drug dog, bloodhound, or metal detector search is not. The first half of this thread lots of people were saying "dumbass tried to defend himself, what did he expect!" Would a good lawyer have made a difference? It's a valid question. If he appeals he will almost certainly retain the best lawyer he can find. I don’t think you realize your first statement backs up the judges ruling. Asking someone a question like “Trick or Treat?” or “Do you want to buy some Girl Scout cookies?” is well within social norms. But, that’s not what happened. Instigating a confrontation on the private property of someone you have had several past confrontations with, filed a law suit against and admitted you knew would not welcome your presence is not a customary social norm. That is the analogous bloodhound or metal detector. Again, you can argue the lawyer hypothetical all you want. I’m not going to. I believe the legal basis in which the judge ruled is valid. |
|
Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: This thread needs 20 more pages of people who'd post that someone who gets into arguments with them in public multiple times then shows up at their house deserves to be arrested on site, but since the homeowner was an douche cop it's somehow different. 1 more page to go boys! |
|
Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: Posted on page 4. 1 more page to go boys! Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: This thread needs 20 more pages of people who'd post that someone who gets into arguments with them in public multiple times then shows up at their house deserves to be arrested on site, but since the homeowner was an douche cop it's somehow different. 1 more page to go boys!  |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: Posted on page 4. 1 more page to go boys! Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: Originally Posted By RayFromJersey: This thread needs 20 more pages of people who'd post that someone who gets into arguments with them in public multiple times then shows up at their house deserves to be arrested on site, but since the homeowner was an douche cop it's somehow different. 1 more page to go boys! Bump
|