re: The view smears the good guy with a gun who killed the mass shooting suspect

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are the ignorant one. When you violate the agreement you have with a property owner you are breaking the law. And don’t tell me he didn’t sign anything. He doesn’t have to. If they have posted rules he has to follow them.

---

The mall’ policies are not laws, not following them is not a crime. The operators of the mall can do nothing more than ask you to leave if you do not follow their policies. At that point if you refuse to leave they can call in law enforcement to remove you, and if they choose to ask that you be charge you with trespassing.

---

Sort of. Just having a policy against firearms in the "Shopper Code of Conduct" has no legal effect. EA6B is correct there. If there is a sign, the answer changes, and you become a trespasser by entering the premises with a gun.

Why? Indiana law says that you are a trespasser if you enter a premises with prior notice not to do so, and it further says that posting a sign constitutes such notice. Indiana Code §35-43-2-2

So, the question becomes "Was there a sign?" Some of the reporting seems to ASSUME that there was a sign, and I discussed this matter earlier on the assumption that there was a sign. But I have looked and looked, and I can find no image of a "no firearms" sign. If such a sign existed, I feel certain that SOME reporter would have included an image in his story.

If there was no sign, there was no trespass.

Of course, this also means that Sapirman was not trespassing either. In many states, the trespass statute says that you commit a trespass if you enter the property with the intent of committing a crime. The Indiana statute does not contain such a provision.

As to him, my thought was "What about burglary?" But Indiana law says there must be "breaking and entering" for a burglary, so no offense there as far as I can see. See Indiana Code §35-43-2-1

quote:

---

Do we have an Indiana attorney on the board? There has to be a reason they're all saying he did nothing unlawful. Do they just not know about this statute?

---

As you know, I argued that Dicken DID commit a trespass the other day, but I realized that I was just ASSUMING the presence of a sign.

Because I cannot find evidence of a sign, I am admitting that I was mistaken as to Dicken. It happens.

I suspect that the couple of Indiana "experts" we have seen cited actually thought about the lack of a sign at the mall. mea culpa.

Definitely doesn't look like there's anything that would qualify.

quote:

---

There’s no fricking way he hit 8/10 from 40 yards so you can stop spreading that sensationalist lie. This isn’t Hollywood

---

Hmm...

quote:

---

A new timeline from Greenwood Police show it only took 15 seconds for the Greenwood mall shooting to come to an end. 

Police reviewed surveillance video that showed the moments the suspect left the food court bathroom to the time Eli Dicken pulled out his gun, aimed and took out the threat.  

Autopsy results also revealed the suspect was hit eight times from about 40 yards away. Police say Dicken fired 10 rounds.

---

LINK

quote:

---

A mall can't make up their own law.

---

No, but they can INVOKE a trespass law by posting the appropriate signage.

This mall just does not seem to have done that.

It's official...

The women of the View want innocent people unprotected and killed.

quote:

---

No, but they can INVOKE a trespass law by posting the appropriate signage.

This mall just does not seem to have done that.

---

Thank you, captain obvious. Quite literally everyone is aware of that so don't strain too hard patting yourself on the back.

quote:

---

She is an idiot, but not a complete moron. She started to say that weapon would fire "thousands" of rounds and quickly corrected to "hundreds" because "thousands" was patently ridiculous.

I STILL want to see the rifle that fires "hundreds" of rounds from a single magazine. This thing?

---

I'm not sure how you effectively use a gun with that many rounds in the clip.