- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Meet 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken who took down the shooter last night
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Especially if the issue were one of "selective enforcement."
My argument is that criminal charges would go nowhere. Seems like it might become malicious prosecution in a place like Indiana
"You don't cite anyone else, but you cite ME?"
1
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:22 pm to AggieHank86
Right, which I think would be supported by the point flats made about them not bothering to check anyone. Then, what does the sign actually say? Where was it posted? Where wasn't it posted?
This, to me, always feels like a "do something" gesture or an insurance CYA.
This, to me, always feels like a "do something" gesture or an insurance CYA.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Probably 99% of the time, and then you have that one owner who is just afraid of guns.
always feels like a "do something" gesture or an insurance CYA
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But I disagree with DB’s sentiment. The mall is private property. They get to set the terms for entry upon that property. You have the option of shopping elsewhere if you dislike the rules.
Do you think the mall should be liable in a civil case if they actively depart from state law and prevent people from being able to protect themselves and then something goes down?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:As YOU certainly know, the question is NORMALLY whether a "duty to protect" exists, and generally it does not.
Do you think the mall should be liable in a civil case if they actively depart from state law and prevent people from being able to protect themselves and then something goes down?
But does a property owner implicitly CREATE a "duty to protect," if he deprives a person of the ability to protect HIMSELF?
I don't see such a duty arising organically in common law because the shopper seems to assume the risk by choosing to shop under that restriction, but I could definitely see some states creating such a duty by statute.
Is that good policy? Now THAT is a can of worms.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Where would you draw that line? A closely-held corp owned by one person? By five siblings? A Trust for one person? For six cousins? A limited oartnership run by one person but with 20 silent partners?
What about an LLLp or an FLP or a single member LLc????
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:no sure of your point. I was just indicating that drawing a line would be difficult. Personally, I do not like the idea of dividing property owners and giving them different legal rights based upon these criteria.
What about an LLLp or an FLP or a single member LLc????
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:58 pm to AggieHank86
Public accommodation would be the easiest line to draw.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:05 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:09 pm to Bulldogblitz
Lemon is not searching for anything but 'D' batteries for his 'Silver Bullet'.................
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Take a look at Indiana Code § 35-43-2-2 ( criminal trespass)).
I doubt the mall presses charges, but it looks to me like the posted signage constitutes a prohibition upon entry with a firearm, making any such entry a misdemeanor criminal trespass.
Louisiana's CHP law is similar (as are most since they are all working from the same model).
You are only trespassing if you are observed, asked to leave, and refuse.
Until then, you are golden.
This was pointed out by the Indiana lawyer they spoke to. Yes, he was in violation of their policy, but until he is asked to leave for violating it, he is NOT trespassing.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
whether a court WOULD enforce the law, if charges WERE brought.
Seems like an easy thing to figure out. Can you cite the case of someone being convicted of criminal trespass for bringing a firearm inside of a mall in Indiana?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
no sure of your point.
Just messing with you. You left out some of the more fun entities.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:53 pm to udtiger
quote:
This was pointed out by the Indiana lawyer they spoke to. Yes, he was in violation of their policy, but until he is asked to leave for violating it, he is NOT trespassing.
Yep, this is my understanding of it. Trying to find something specific that addresses this in Indiana is oddly difficult.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:54 pm to The Boat
quote:OP had a stroke while typing his name, that's my best guess.
Someone help me out
But whatever his name is, crown him!
Posted on 7/19/22 at 1:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You see people making this sort of conclusory statement, including some on the other side too, but no one actually reviewing and analyzing the applicable statute to explain HOW/WHY they reach their conclusions.
This was pointed out by the Indiana lawyer they spoke to. Yes, he was in violation of their policy, but until he is asked to leave for violating it, he is NOT trespassing.quote:
Yep, this is my understanding of it. Trying to find something specific that addresses this in Indiana is oddly difficult.
It is frustrating.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You see people making this sort of conclusory statement, including some on the other side too, but no one actually reviewing and analyzing the applicable statute to explain HOW/WHY they reach their conclusions.
It is frustrating.
I'm just going with experience. The statute you reference is somewhat unique compared to the states I've taught in, which admittedly doesn't include Indiana.
As always, in a classroom environment, I'd qualify that to say that you should always seek legal advice from an attorney in your state.
Would be interesting to have a conversation with the attorney(s) who have made the assertion.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:04 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I admit that I probably did the same.
I'm just going with experience. The statute you reference is somewhat unique compared to the states I've taught in, which admittedly doesn't include Indiana.
The Texas statute is nearly-identical to the Indiana statute in practice, even if the phrasing is a bit different. I remember that Georgia was also very similar from our forum discussions regarding the Arbery shooting.
Flats referenced Florida, so I looked at the Florida statute. I was surprised to see that it did NOT have similar language supporting the automatic existence of a trespass when a sign has been posted. After more than 30 years dealing with the Texas law, the concept seemed oddly foreign to me.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:09 pm to AggieHank86
Indiana attorneys and those familiar with the law seem to be fairly certain that no laws were potentially broken, regardless of the policy. I'm curious why they're so sure and would think they have similar familiarity as you in Texas and I in Florida.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:15 pm to shel311
quote:
OP had a stroke while typing his name
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News