Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[Kutnupe14]

I'm perfectly willing to leave when LEGALLY asked to do so, but under IC 35-41-3-2, I have a right to resist unlawful conduct of public servants, and under IC 35-43-2-2(c), the police do not have the authority to unilaterally eject me, only after they have become the agent of the owners through some form of communication. It is therefore reasonable for me to resist ejection until I have evidence that the owner/agent has made the request. Once I have received that evidence, my right to resist evaporates, and I am all too willing to move along.

How does this apply to the post I responded to? Do you think I am incorrect?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I've only randomly read through this thread, but I didn't see if the OP asked the person accosting him if the security person was a police officer, or if the security person stated he was a police officer, because if he wasn't, as Sarge seems to believe (and I have no reason to doubt), then he was presenting himself as a police officer which I believe, correct me if I am wrong, most law enforcement jurisdictions take a pretty dim view of...

 

[Kutnupe14]

OMG! Brain-gasm!
The above quote is not true.



A LEO, unbidden by management, comes up to you OCing in the mall and demands you GTFO because of a 1" x 1" monochrome sticker in the bottom left of the left-most of 18 doors on the side of the mall and threatens to trespass your ass if you don't begin marching right now. You reply by saying, "I have the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls this property to have this handgun on the premises."


Fight legal BS with legal BS. Either way, the only way for the LEO to be legal now would be to actually get with the owner. One way or another, I get the owner/agent to confirm with the LEO whether or not the owner/agent is desirous of my ejection. Everyone's happy.

You're last paragraph is spot on. A property owner can make exceptions to his rules. A LEO can't act on his own accord unless it is made clear a person is unwelcome. But do take that to mean the property own must communicate that to the trespassers, if a sign, fitting code, has served that notice.

 

[printcraft]

You're last paragraph is spot on. A property owner can make exceptions to his rules. A LEO can't act on his own accord unless it is made clear a person is unwelcome. But do take that to mean the property own must communicate that to the trespassers, if a sign, fitting code, has served that notice.

I'm putting this sign on the front door of the shop. It's the only entrance.

Not only do I want you to arrest the next person that walks in with them on ..... I hereby authorize you to shoot their sorry ass on sight.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm putting this sign on the front door of the shop. It's the only entrance.

Not only do I want you to arrest the next person that walks in with them on ..... I hereby authorize you to shoot their sorry ass on sight.

I think reptiles of that size would be an issue. What's that shoe doing in the picture. Is one expected to know name brands referencing animals?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Print, you've been having an off couple of days. What's the dilly yo?

 

[printcraft]

Print, you've been having an off couple of days. What's the dilly yo?

Arguing the improbable with the impossible will do that to you every single time.

 

[Expat]

Arguing the improbable with the impossible will do that to you every single time.

Fancy talker

 

[SteveM4A1]

It was probably a guard. They dress in uniforms that look much like police officers. They also act like them. A police officer, if called, would almost surely have a representative of the mall with him when he approaches the subject for this. Reason being is there would be nothing a police officer could do without one. Despite what people seem to think in this thread it is well established that no guns signs, no matter the language, where they are posted, etc carry no weight of law in Indiana. So the officer, by himself, would have had no authority to request the guy to leave unless he was working there (which has been established to not be the case). A security officer would have such authority to request the individual to leave as he would be in an official position to act on their behalf.

Uh oh...who's right?

 

[printcraft]

Fancy talker

Gives them something to chew on.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Maybe we need a sort of LEO rendition of "parlay". A magic word that if spoken to an out of control LEO puts them in legal jeopardy for ignoring our attempts to communicate reasonably to them.

purple where necessary

 

[printcraft]

Maybe we need a sort of LEO rendition of "parlay". A magic word that if spoken to an out of control LEO puts them in legal jeopardy for ignoring our attempts to communicate reasonably to them.

purple where necessary

"Stopius Resistius" counters all other spells. That **** is better than Abracadabra.

 

[jbombelli]

Bump the thread, and I'll apply, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Since you typically use hyperbole, and misrepresent, I'll have to see my original post. But I WILL respond.

Here are the pertinent posts:

...
A background check does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way; at least in how it was originally concieved and practiced, by the founders.

Please let me know in what document they wrote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character based on a background check to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate."

Please point out where they wrote that, or where they explained that this is what the 2nd Amendment *actually* means.

I'll be waiting. And good luck.

Obviously, that would be found in the Constitution. My question for you, is was this, and the whole concept of rights, understood by our early American Founders, in 1776 (Declaration), 1787 (Constitution), or much earlier?

How about you post the verbiage then? If it's so obvious and all, that the founders intended the phrase "...shall not be infringed" to actually mean "...may be infringed in such way as the government sees fit" you should be able to quote it.

So QUOTE IT.

Don't tell me what you THINK they meant. Quote them. I have the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to back my position. Find something in there that confirms your position. Don't just tell me it's in there. Quote it.

Quote the Constitution. Not some incorrect Court decision. The Constitution itself. You said it's in there, now prove it.

Patience padawan, I'm on it. I'm simply putting the information together. And, I'm not putting down "thoughts," but rather actual laws and the actions carried out.

We're talking about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Not laws and court decisions that came later. You said it's in the Constitution. Now quote the part of the Constitution that supports what you say. Not some BS court decision or legislative act that came later that says "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed."

QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise all you're doing is proving that you're not the only one who believes in revocable privilrges instead of rights, which is what this discussion is actually about. You don't believe in rights, and are just fishing for support from others who also believe as you.

That's exactly what we are talking about. Surely you aren't so intellectually dishonest with yourself, that you don't see the hyprocrisy in the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution, ignoring the observation of these natural rights.

Simply put, I judge a man on his actions rather than his words. You can write all the noble words on a piece of parchment as you want, but they mean absolutely nothing if you fail to put them into practice.

So now you're insulting them instead of backing up your claims that they believed something other than what they specifically wrote. The fact that not everybody was treated equally back then does not mean "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed however we want."

I'm still waiting for you to provide those quotes from the Constitution. After all, you said it is obviously in there.

I'll bet you've never actually even read it. If you had, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims

I'm intellectually dishonest? ME??? Lololololololololol.

I'm not the one who believes they meant something other than what they said when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I'm not the one who claims to believe in rights, but actually believes in revocable privileges. As far as the words on the parchment go, YOU ARE THE ONE FAILING TO PUT THOSE INTO PRACTICE. Not me. YOU.

And like I said before... What is the point of arguing this with you? You're never going to give up your love of government control. You're never going to accept rights over privileges. Ever.

We both know it.

Very. But you will have you "proof."

This, from the man who can't even back up what he says. The man who believes in the Bill of Revocable Privileges.

Riiiiiight. I would love to see you make that case.

You already made it for me, like you've done many, many times on this forum.

You STILL have not provided that quote....


How patient does "Padawan" need to be? Exactly how long is this going to take for you to get your information together?

 

[gjclark]

Sorry Sarge, been busy. I sent you a PM.

To clarify, the men who approached me were very official looking but never identified themselves by name or position but did say that they could indeed arrest me. I should have been more heads up and had more of a conversation but I didn't really want to make a scene. Any tips on what to do in the future? Are you a prick if you ask if they are Guards or Cops?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Are you a prick if you ask if they are Guards or Cops?

If someone is ordering you around and wearing a uniform, ALWAYS ask if they are a police officer, what department, and their name. Then double check later to make sure they ARE a police officer. Because if they are not then you local PD will want to know someone is passing themselves off as such as this is a pretty big no-no.

 

[sporter]

A famous Wayne La Pierre quote comes to mind...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here are the pertinent posts:

You STILL have not provided that quote....

How patient does "Padawan" need to be? Exactly how long is this going to take for you to get your information together?

I won't hijack this thread so bump the original, and I get to answering

 

[jbombelli]

I won't hijack this thread so bump the original, and I get to answering

Post your answers here - the hijacking is already done. There's no need to bump the other thread.


Or are you just going to use that as an excuse to run away again?

 

[Sarge470]

I checked the activity logs for the last week, and found no "party armed" or MWAG incidents at Glenbrook, at least in the records for FWPD. I'm still looking for ways to figure out exactly who approached gjclark, but at this point there is nothing in the system from any Fort Wayne personnel, uniformed or otherwise. That's by no means a guarantee that it was not FWPD personnel, but it's pretty unusual to take any type of action involving an armed citizen without at least calling it out, especially after the OC-legal training we all received last year. I'll keep digging...

Sorry Sarge, been busy. I sent you a PM.

To clarify, the men who approached me were very official looking but never identified themselves by name or position but did say that they could indeed arrest me. I should have been more heads up and had more of a conversation but I didn't really want to make a scene. Any tips on what to do in the future? Are you a prick if you ask if they are Guards or Cops?

 

[SteveM4A1]

I checked the activity logs for the last week, and found no "party armed" or MWAG incidents at Glenbrook, at least in the records for FWPD. I'm still looking for ways to figure out exactly who approached gjclark, but at this point there is nothing in the system from any Fort Wayne personnel, uniformed or otherwise. That's by no means a guarantee that it was not FWPD personnel, but it's pretty unusual to take any type of action involving an armed citizen without at least calling it out, especially after the OC-legal training we all received last year. I'll keep digging...

Good to know. Major rep.