One security officer's report said they were speaking to other customers. It said nothing about complaints, arguing, or raised voices. It did not indicate that the accused initiated the conversations, either. It said the security officer told them to take off their shirts. That is not the same as telling them to stop talking to other customers. That impinges on personal space to an unacceptable degree.

Another security report (the legible one) mentioned a middle-aged woman who was made nervous by a conversation the men were having with other people. Hers is the only complaint mentioned, and it was not witnessed by the reporting officer. Unless he had a signed statement, it was anonymous hearsay, and not admissible in a criminal proceding.

The police report only reported what the security officers said they were told that other people saw. The trespassing charge was brought by the security officers, because of "refusal to comply", and that was the subject of the police report.

We receive complaints from patrons, too, which we will record, but we can only act on them if a member of the staff actually witnesses the offense, or if the patron is willing to sign a complaint, appear at a hearing, or, if it may be a crinimal matter, wait for the police. This prevents anonymous harrassment of one person or group of persons by another.

Wearing clothes with specific messages may only be forbidden with a written and posted policy. This prevents capricious and discriminatory regulation enforcement.

The most salient and consistent point in the reports is the repeated mention of the "peace" messages on the shirts. Had there been a public scene, then numbers of people involved, actions witnessed and things said would have been included. The most important thing to the officers was mentioned repeatedly. The mall couldn't make a case with reports like those.

Somebody needs better training.

Regards--
Mary Anne