How Does the SLC PD View Mormons? LGBT?

[Storm Rider]

On 6/18/2016 at 1:44 AM, california boy said:

If officer Moutsos had a problem working with ANY part of the community then perhaps choosing to be a police officer was also the wrong occupation for him.  I think that is EXACTLY the point the police chief was making.  And given his subsequent actions is probably the conclusion saint Moutsos came to as well.

You are wrong about this and shows how little you understand about police work in todays world.  Of fundamental importance in police work is having a good relationship within the community and ESPECIALLY minority communities.  If you don't understand this then you haven't been paying any attention to the news, especially this past year.  It was in saint Moutsos's job description and he even trained for it. 

Cal, I bolded the two phrases above because I think they are important.  You have set a standard for Officer Moutsos.  If we use that exact standard, why wouldn't Officer Stayner be fired immediately no questions asked.  I take it that you would strongly support that conclusion?

As an aside, I don't think your standard is realistic.  I don't care if an officer learns to dislike some kinds of people; I care deeply that he is able to serve the community.  If someone is belligerent about their hatred for a segment of the citizenry then that may be grounds for dismissal.  BTW, between Moutsos and Stayner the officer that loudly voiced their hatred for a specific subset of the population is Stayner - Moutsos never did.  

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I bolded the two phrases above because I think they are important.  You have set a standard for Officer Moutsos.  If we use that exact standard, why wouldn't Officer Stayner be fired immediately no questions asked.  I take it that you would strongly support that conclusion?

As an aside, I don't think your standard is realistic.  I don't care if an officer learns to dislike some kinds of people; I care deeply that he is able to serve the community.  If someone is belligerent about their hatred for a segment of the citizenry then that may be grounds for dismissal.  BTW, between Moutsos and Stayner the officer that loudly voiced their hatred for a specific subset of the population is Stayner - Moutsos never did.  

Of course officer staynar should be disciplined and if firing is appropriate, he should be fired. I have said repeatedly and loudly that I condemned both officers for their actions. Read my earlier posts. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by california boy

[provoman]

the statements are centainly cause for concern....but such conduct - either favoring a religion or speaking against a religion - does not seem uncommon for Utah government representatives. Not long Provo fire and police started promoting the Provo City Temple on their uniforms.  That should bother those who are bothered by the SlC police officer statements.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

If indeed this were Officer Moustos' position on doing his duty then I would agree with you. It remains to be seen in the LA Times article whether he referred to a motorcop parade entry or to the actual duty of protecting and keeping the peace.

 

What exactly is your issue on this one? You don't believe there were a reasonable scenario where the gentlemen in question deserved to be arrested? Again, the default position should be to assume there were just cause unless evidenced to the contrary. I should remind you charges are regularly dropped by the DA though this is not always a commentary on whether an arrest should have been made. The fact that Moustos now is in the employ of Sutherland Institute is simply a commentary on his finding contstructive and legal ways of putting his beliefs into action.

 

I agree much of this is speculation and on both sides. And I would also agree there is probably more to it than is apparent to both of us. My inclination is to air on the side of the officer though I don't have a dog in the fight were I to find out he were everything you seem to be suggesting and/or outright accusing him of in this thread and others. Though your more tempered position of late is noted, IMO you would do well to moderate your commentary overall as I believe it to be too laden with partisan speculation.

 

The fact that former officer Moustos now works for an organization that worked to take away the civil rights and activally opposed the recent anti discrimination laws supported by the church and passed by the Utah legislature strongly suggests he was no friend to the LGBT community in my opinion.  

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course officer staynar should be disciplined and if firing is appropriate, he should be fired. I have said repeatedly and loudly that I condemned both officers for their actions. Read my earlier posts. 

I thought you had, but there still seems to be an ongoing discussion about Moutsos, which I have a very hard time understanding why the Chief took the actions he did.  Moutsos is not the first person who has been treated badly/poorly/unfairly.  Stayner has a more responsible position - he is supposed to actually be a liaison officer representing the Department to the community.  I don't think there should be any degree understanding of his actions.  It is not, "Oh, gosh officer.  Looks like you had a bad day. Try and do better next time."  

Moutsos is a classic case of a knee-jerk response to when the mere potential of an offense to a special class of people is projected to have ocurred.  He did nothing wrong, but the Chief appears to have actually lied all in the name of stamping down/crushing any officer who dares to say anything potentially negative about that special class.  It is the absolute worst form of political correctness and stupid thinking; so much for the Chief being a reliable servant of the people.

Stayner actually is a bigot.  He specifically said he wanted to offend the Mormon people.  I personally don't think his actions merit firing, but he should never be used as a liaison officer or represent the department until some very substantial retraining is completed and a long-term demonstration of ability to serve the public in Utah is evident.  As you infer above in another context, if he was honest maybe he should just quit and move on if he hates Mormons and the Mormon Church so much.  He may have a better time of serving some place where no Mormons exist.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

the statements are centainly cause for concern....but such conduct - either favoring a religion or speaking against a religion - does not seem uncommon for Utah government representatives. Not long Provo fire and police started promoting the Provo City Temple on their uniforms.  That should bother those who are bothered by the SlC police officer statements.

No kidding. Only in Utah 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I thought you had, but there still seems to be an ongoing discussion about Moutsos, which I have a very hard time understanding why the Chief took the actions he did.  Moutsos is not the first person who has been treated badly/poorly/unfairly.  Stayner has a more responsible position - he is supposed to actually be a liaison officer representing the Department to the community.  I don't think there should be any degree understanding of his actions.  It is not, "Oh, gosh officer.  Looks like you had a bad day. Try and do better next time."  

Moutsos is a classic case of a knee-jerk response to when the mere potential of an offense to a special class of people is projected to have ocurred.  He did nothing wrong, but the Chief appears to have actually lied all in the name of stamping down/crushing any officer who dares to say anything potentially negative about that special class.  It is the absolute worst form of political correctness and stupid thinking; so much for the Chief being a reliable servant of the people.

Stayner actually is a bigot.  He specifically said he wanted to offend the Mormon people.  I personally don't think his actions merit firing, but he should never be used as a liaison officer or represent the department until some very substantial retraining is completed and a long-term demonstration of ability to serve the public in Utah is evident.  As you infer above in another context, if he was honest maybe he should just quit and move on if he hates Mormons and the Mormon Church so much.  He may have a better time of serving some place where no Mormons exist.

 

I don't disagree with you. I am just not willing to make a saint out of officer Moultsos. Neither officer acted appropriately. Given officer Moultsos's later actions, and the fact that he arrested a gay couple for kissing in what at the time appeared to be public property, I think there is more to the story then just trying to get out of his assigned job. The guy now workers for an organization who fights against the rights of gay citizens for heavens sakes. Sorry, not feeling the love. 

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't disagree with you. I am just not willing to make a saint out of officer Moultsos. Neither officer acted appropriately. Given officer Moultsos's later actions, and the fact that he arrested a gay couple for kissing in what at the time appeared to be public property, I think there is more to the story then just trying to get out of his assigned job. The guy now workers for an organization who fights against the rights of gay citizens for heavens sakes. Sorry, not feeling the love. 

Okay, I accept that.  Now compare that to Officer Stayner - who seeks to offend Mormons and the Church while working, wait for it, in Salt Lake.  The more I think about it the more absurd it becomes and the more I want to see his butt bouned to the curb for stupidity much less being a bigot.  It is not that I am not feeling the love; it is that Stayner has no love for my people. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Okay, I accept that.  Now compare that to Officer Stayner - who seeks to offend Mormons and the Church while working, wait for it, in Salt Lake.  The more I think about it the more absurd it becomes and the more I want to see his butt bouned to the curb for stupidity much less being a bigot.  It is not that I am not feeling the love; it is that Stayner has no love for my people. 

Though I may or may not agree..you have written this with a greater understanding from me as to how you feel.  I respect that.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Okay, I accept that.  Now compare that to Officer Stayner - who seeks to offend Mormons and the Church while working, wait for it, in Salt Lake.  The more I think about it the more absurd it becomes and the more I want to see his butt bouned to the curb for stupidity much less being a bigot.  It is not that I am not feeling the love; it is that Stayner has no love for my people. 

I absolutely agree.  Bigotry has no place in the police force.  It makes the public loose trust, which is essential in performing their job.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I absolutely agree.  Bigotry has no place in the police force.  It makes the public loose trust, which is essential in performing their job.

I prefer to be realistic.  It is impossible to produce individuals that have no bigotry within their thinking.  What seems of most importance is how an individual deals with their own bigotry - is it expressed in the manner in which they serve the public.  When we set the standard so high on something like bigotry or any prejudice all we do is force people to hide it.  It is better to expect a tolerance for admitting where an individuals has a potential weakness and making sure that it does not affect the manner in which they serve the community.  The more honest we are about reality the more easy it is for people to have an expectation that they can manage their feelings when dealing with the public.  

I think this is one of the reasons the comparison between these two officers is so important and how poorly it was handled.  The one officer requests not to be in the parade riding a motorcycle.  When he was denied the right to switch shifts with another officer he was crucified.  The other uses the media to share his hatred of the Mormon people and their Church and nothing happens. 

What is worse?  Officers who request not to being in a parade or serving a specific shift or officers who go on the media and ridicule other races, genders, cultures, minorities, etc.?  I will take officers who just want to trade a shift rather than those who use the media to preach hate.  

Stayner has an issue; he needs to work on the issue and learn to deal with this hatred and express it in positive ways - like not using the media and understanding that Mormons are just humans just like he is.  They don't need to trash talk any more than anyone else does.  

[Calm]

Iirc, Officer Moustos was at the time given positive recognition by the SL gay community for how he and his partner handled the gay kissing on Temple Square occurrence.  I will try and find documentation if someone elsedoesn't do so first.  My understanding was that taking the individuals into custody was first done by the TS security officers so there wasn't much choice by the SL police officers on what they could do, just how they could go about doing it (with disrespect or respect and kindness).

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Iirc, Officer Moustos was at the time given positive recognition by the SL gay community for how he and his partner handled the gay kissing on Temple Square occurrence.  I will try and find documentation if someone elsedoesn't do so first.  My understanding was that taking the individuals into custody was first done by the TS security officers so there wasn't much choice by the SL police officers on what they could do, just how they could go about doing it (with disrespect or respect and kindness).

Yes, that's precisely what happened.

I haven't had time lately to tend this thread, and CB is making allegations that call for rebuttals, this one among them.

But earlier in this thread, I linked to the thread of last year. In one of the posts on that thread, there is a link to a statement by Officer Moutsos, as I recall, which includes something about the gays kissing on the Church plaza on Main Street. As I recall, he said, "The first thing I did was remove the handcuffs." In the media, the officer was praised by the gay community for his handling of the incident. I would be grateful if you could find the link.

To portray him now as unable to work with or relate to the gay community is an unjust accusation.

[Daniel2]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Iirc, Officer Moustos was at the time given positive recognition by the SL gay community for how he and his partner handled the gay kissing on Temple Square occurrence.  I will try and find documentation if someone elsedoesn't do so first.  My understanding was that taking the individuals into custody was first done by the TS security officers so there wasn't much choice by the SL police officers on what they could do, just how they could go about doing it (with disrespect or respect and kindness).

 

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that's precisely what happened.

I haven't had time lately to tend this thread, and CB is making allegations that call for rebuttals, this one among them.

But earlier in this thread, I linked to the thread of last year. In one of the posts on that thread, there is a link to a statement by Officer Moutsos, as I recall, which includes something about the gays kissing on the Church plaza on Main Street. As I recall, he said, "The first thing I did was remove the handcuffs." In the media, the officer was praised by the gay community for his handling of the incident. I would be grateful if you could find the link.

To portray him now as unable to work with or relate to the gay community is an unjust accusation.

So, I've been doing some digging online, and came up with the following, which is from Moustos's own allegations, in his own defense, as reported in an article entitled, Utah Officer defends his Objections to Riding at Head of Gay Pride Parade:

Quote

Moutsos counters that he has worked police security at previous gay and lesbian events.

He says he also made the local news in 2009 in his handling of an incident in which two gay men were detained and handcuffed by security after they were found kissing on Mormon church property at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City.

“I was the officer who responded on the scene and the first thing I did was take off those handcuffs. One was intoxicated and so I was within my rights to arrest him,” he recalled. “But I talked with them for 20 minutes. We shook hands. They thanked me for my handling of the matter. I felt for them.”

A local headline, Moutsos added, read, “Officer’s report sides with gay couple.”

Strangely enough, when I Google for any derivative of that local headline that Moustos alleges to have existed (“Officer’s report sides with gay couple”), I find no search results on even any conservative websites, whether active or archived... 

And I can't find any other actual, external articles or reports since 2009 of the incident involving the handcuffed gay-couple who were kissing on the plaza that even mention, let alone verify, that Moutsos was involved in that incident or removed the handcuffs, either...

Anyone else find anything, other than Moutsos' claim that such a headline or report existed...?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

So, I've been doing some digging online, and came up with the following, which is from Moustos's own allegations, in his own defense, as reported in an article entitled, Utah Officer defends his Objections to Riding at Head of Gay Pride Parade:

Strangely enough, when I Google for any derivative of that local headline that Moustos alleges to have existed (“Officer’s report sides with gay couple”), I find no search results on even any conservative websites, whether active or archived... 

And I can't find any other actual, external articles or reports since 2009 of the incident involving the handcuffed gay-couple who were kissing on the plaza that even mention, let alone verify, that Moutsos was involved in that incident or removed the handcuffs, either...

Anyone else find anything, other than Moutsos' claim that such a headline or report existed...?

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4196/Utah_Gay_Kiss_Police_Report_Sides_With_Couple

When I googled this was the first option that came up. 

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4196/Utah_Gay_Kiss_Police_Report_Sides_With_Couple

When I googled this was the first option that came up. 

Awesome!  Glad you found it--thanks for posting.  It looks like the reason it wasn't showing up as the title was slightly different than what Moutsos had previously reported.

So, from the article you posted:

The report, released 5 days after the incident, cites kissing and hugging as the “unwanted behavior,” as Aune and Jones had claimed.

“[Security guard Walter] Nickel said that he observed Matt and Derek kissing and hugging on their property,” the report says.

The report conflicts with the church's statement that the pair were not discriminated against because they are gay. Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said the men were given a warning about their behavior, like any other couple would be given. But the report does not mention a warning, saying only that the guard told the pair that “they need to leave [church] property for the behavior and that [it] is unwanted,” and that the men were detained and the police called when Jones refused the order.

Jones claimed during a television interview that as he was being cuffed, one of the guards said, “It's just gross, it's just wrong.”

The report also indicates the presence of alcohol. “I could smell alcohol on Matt's [Aune] breath and he [sic] speech was slightly slurred when he spoke to me,” police officer Eric Moutsos said.

It seems there's still some differences between what was being reported above vs. how Moutsos characterized the event several years later, as was previously quoted in this thread:

Moutsos counters that he has worked police security at previous gay and lesbian events.

He says he also made the local news in 2009 in his handling of an incident in which two gay men were detained and handcuffed by security after they were found kissing on Mormon church property at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City.

“I was the officer who responded on the scene and the first thing I did was take off those handcuffs. One was intoxicated and so I was within my rights to arrest him,” he recalled. “But I talked with them for 20 minutes. We shook hands. They thanked me for my handling of the matter. I felt for them.”

A local headline, Moutsos added, read, “Officer’s report sides with gay couple.”

In reading both accounts, it seems to me that Moutsos is overplaying that he handled the couple favorably, as opposed to how he should have handled them. 

That is, it doesn't seem like there was any reason to have handcuffed the individuals, anyway, so of course he should have removed the handcuffs. 

Also, his more recent characterization is that one of the two individuals "was intoxicated and so I was within my rights to arrest him," but according the article quoting the report, at the time he wrote that "I could smell alcohol on Matt's [Aune] breath and he [sic] speech was slightly slurred when he spoke to me" (italics added). 

The individuals were not driving, and in 2009, Moutsos only reported that one of them had "slightly" slurred speech... I'm not sure why, four years later, Moutsos says, "One was intoxicated and so I was within my rights to arrest him."  I'm not sure if that's because he was intoxicated and on the church's private property....?  It may be that he feels both reports are consistent, since he was there and lived the experience.  I just don't think that's apparent to those of us who weren't there--myself included.

That being said, I do think what seems clear is that Moutsos treated the couple in that incident in a fair way.

Further, I don't think that Moutsos is necessarily a bigot.  

I also don't think the gay officer that expressed anger on his personal FB page over the church's policy is a bigot, either.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Awesome!  Glad you found it--thanks for posting.  It looks like the reason it wasn't showing up as the title was slightly different than what Moutsos had previously reported.

So, from the article you posted:

 

 

Yes.  I don't know that Moustos did anything worth noting as wrong therefore it could be concluded he treated them favorably.  I'd be fine if that's how he wanted to portray it. 

I'm really not concerned with either incident all that much.  no offense to anyone.  But police officers have their opinions just like the rest of us.  I see no reason to get allworked up.  if I, an active LDS person, ran into this other officer who is upset about the policy, he'd likely not know I was LDS and I'd expect him to be professional about his job.  And if he knew I was LDS and had a problem with it, I'd kindly inform him even some LDS oppose the policy, and support SSM, so he shouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush.  I'd probably feel obliged to share the same kind of things with Moustos if he were still a police man. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  I don't know that Moustos did anything worth noting as wrong therefore it could be concluded he treated them favorably.  I'd be fine if that's how he wanted to portray it. 

I'm really not concerned with either incident all that much.  no offense to anyone.  But police officers have their opinions just like the rest of us.  I see no reason to get allworked up.  if I, an active LDS person, ran into this other officer who is upset about the policy, he'd likely not know I was LDS and I'd expect him to be professional about his job.  And if he knew I was LDS and had a problem with it, I'd kindly inform him even some LDS oppose the policy, and support SSM, so he shouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush.  I'd probably feel obliged to share the same kind of things with Moustos if he were still a police man. 

The cause for concern I see is the inequitable treatment when the two cases are compared. The one guy didn't do anything wrong. All he did was make the chief mad by requesting a change in assignment.

The other made a public statement of hatred toward a faith group in the community.

In the former, the officer is summarily suspended, publicly humiliated and pressured into resigning.

In the latter, the officer's behavior is treated with a figurative shrug of the shoulders and he remains on track for a promotion.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/19/2016 at 5:50 PM, california boy said:

The fact that former officer Moustos now works for an organization that worked to take away the civil rights and activally opposed the recent anti discrimination laws supported by the church and passed by the Utah legislature strongly suggests he was no friend to the LGBT community in my opinion.  

You keep saying this.

I tried to search online to find an instance of the Sutherland Institute "actively" opposing the Utah compromise. What I found instead was this op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune written by the director of policy for the Sutherland Institute. In this piece, he writes favorably about the Utah policy, though he does so in the course of opposing a hate-crimes bill that was then before the Utah Legislature. Which makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about when you say the institute "actively opposed the recent anti-discrimination laws supported by the Church." We're talking about the Utah compromise here, right? Where do you get the idea the institute publicly opposed it?

Also, Moutsos did not go to work for the Sutherland Institute until long after he was publicly humiliated and pressured out of a job by an off-the-rails chief of police. By then, he had become an outspoken advocate for the free exercise of religion, which is very understandable in light of what he had been put through. And since the Sutherland Institute has as its goal to promote freedom of religion, it stands to reason that Moutsos would want to work for them.

It very much seems like you are favoring a political litmus test for eligibility to work for the SLPD. In your world, would a candidate for employment with the police department have to pledge political allegiance to the concept of same-sex marriage in order to be eligible? That bothers me a great deal. It strikes me as unconstitutional, illegal and, at the very least, un-American.

Furthermore, I seem to recall somewhere -- perhaps it was a link provided earlier in this thread -- that told of Moutsos attending the wedding of two of his gay friends, not because he approved of their marriage, but because he was showing his friendship.

He doesn't sound like the bigoted gay-basher you are making him out to be.

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

So, I've been doing some digging online, and came up with the following, which is from Moustos's own allegations, in his own defense, as reported in an article entitled, Utah Officer defends his Objections to Riding at Head of Gay Pride Parade:

Strangely enough, when I Google for any derivative of that local headline that Moustos alleges to have existed (“Officer’s report sides with gay couple”), I find no search results on even any conservative websites, whether active or archived... 

And I can't find any other actual, external articles or reports since 2009 of the incident involving the handcuffed gay-couple who were kissing on the plaza that even mention, let alone verify, that Moutsos was involved in that incident or removed the handcuffs, either...

Anyone else find anything, other than Moutsos' claim that such a headline or report existed...?

 

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4196/Utah_Gay_Kiss_Police_Report_Sides_With_Couple

When I googled this was the first option that came up. 

My thanks to Daniel2 and stemelbow for finding the documentation. It saved me some paper chasing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quote

The individuals were not driving, and in 2009, Moutsos only reported that one of them had "slightly" slurred speech... I'm not sure why, four years later, Moutsos says, "One was intoxicated and so I was within my rights to arrest him."  I'm not sure if that's because he was intoxicated and on the church's private property....?  It may be that he feels both reports are consistent, since he was there and lived the experience.  I just don't think that's apparent to those of us who weren't there--myself included.

I could be wrong, but isn't public intoxication a criminal offense?

Also, my memory of the incident is that the two men became disorderly and uncooperative when they were asked by the security officers to leave the private property (which is why city police were called in the first place).

Edited June 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/19/2016 at 5:38 PM, california boy said:

Of course officer staynar should be disciplined and if firing is appropriate, he should be fired. I have said repeatedly and loudly that I condemned both officers for their actions. Read my earlier posts. 

Believe it or not, I don't think Stayner's behavior warrants his being fired. I just think that, under the circumstances, there must be better candidates for captain, either from in-house or outside the department.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The cause for concern I see is the inequitable treatment when the two cases are compared. The one guy didn't do anything wrong. All he did was make the chief mad by requesting a change in assignment.

The other made a public statement of hatred toward a faith group in the community.

In the former, the officer is summarily suspended, publicly humiliated and pressured into resigning.

In the latter, the officer's behavior is treated with a figurative shrug of the shoulders and he remains on track for a promotion.

I can't deny that there is a problem here, at least in one case. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/19/2016 at 5:41 PM, provoman said:

the statements are centainly cause for concern....but such conduct - either favoring a religion or speaking against a religion - does not seem uncommon for Utah government representatives. Not long Provo fire and police started promoting the Provo City Temple on their uniforms.  That should bother those who are bothered by the SlC police officer statements.

You'll disagree, I'm sure, but I think a reasonable case can be made that the Stayner-Moutsos matters, on the one hand, and the inclusion of such symbols on uniforms, on the other hand, are distinguishable.  I think those who favor completely extinguishing any hint of religious expression from public life will, if their vision is realized, eventually also come to the realization (many to their dismay, if not to their horror, their antipathy and/or apathy toward religion notwithstanding) that the "cultural baby" has been thrown out with the "religious bathwater."  Even those for whom the tabernacle-cum-temple has no religious significance should be broadminded enough to recognize that, if nothing else, it has enormous cultural significance. Failing at least to meet the religiously devout at that point may well lead to society becoming not only religiously impoverished, but culturally impoverished, as well.

By analogy, I'm not a Muslim.  The religio-cultural artifacts being destroyed by ISIS in much of the Muslim world hold no particular religious significance for me.  But, inevitably, their destruction will lead to cultural impoverishment, as well, and that is of grave concern to me, my status as an "infidel"/outsider notwithstanding.  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I could be wrong, but isn't public intoxication a criminal infraction?

Also, my memory of the incident is that the two men became disorderly and uncooperative when they were asked by the security officers to leave the private property (which is why city police were called in the first place).

Yes.  Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-701 (it's a Class C Misdemeanor, one step above an infraction, although I realize you were probably using the word "infraction" in its more general sense rather than in any technical legal sense).  http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter9/76-9-S701.html?v=C76-9-S701_2015051220150512