Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[Kutnupe14]

Now you're just grasping at straws. Maybe the "No Firearms" sign that you see actually means "No Airsoft Guns" or "No Lighters Shaped Like Firearms." See, I can grasp too. We all know what obvious signs mean when we see them, stop twisting and find some relevant case law.

It totally could. I never said a simple "no firearms" sign applied. I actually said the opposite.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I asked him for that before. He won't provide any information that we could use to look it up.

Did you? Where exactly?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok let me try again........

"No talking if you look like pac-man?" Well, that doesn't apply to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So we're countenancing a situation where an officer, without consulting with the property owner, arrests and charges a person with trespassing, for carrying a weapon onto the property in question. I don't know about the jury in the case cited, but if I were on trial, I would at least hope for six sapient beings to occupy the jury box.

That's on of the things I found shocking about the case. The guy was convicted based on the testimony of a passerby, and a sign. LE witnessed anything, and nothing is cited from the property owner.

 

[jbombelli]

Did you? Where exactly?

A while back I asked for that and you refused to provide it. Care to provide that information now?

I've given you code verbatim. You can decipher anyway you wish. I'm telling you how it's been enforced. You apparently aren't givng credit to the reasonable person standard often cited by courts. It's pretty easy to figure out. "What would a reasonable person believe a postng of a 'no firearms allowed" sign post outside of a business entrance mean?" A Bench or jury trial... you better bring your lunch, 'cause your feelingng are going to get hurt.

If you have issue with it, and think you can win a payday based on the recountings of "legal eagles" from an internet gun site, go for it. I'm telling you, that at least in Carmel, it's not a smart move.

Since this is how you claim it's enforced, maybe you can cite some sort of precedent that shows someone convicted of trespassing based solely on a no-guns sign with no request for that person to leave the premises?

I've asked for this before but nobody ever seems to come up with any convictions for trespassing wherein the person wasn't first asked to leave and then either refused or came back.

My attorney explained to me that "no trespassing" and "no admittance" and "jbombelli is banned from the premises" would be denial of entry. "No Guns" is conditional admittance for lack of a better term, and not the same thing. They're not telling you that you can't come in, therefore it's not denial of entry.

Now today we have this:

Yeah, it does apply... As much as many might want it not to, it does. The IC doesn't cite simply "no trespassing" signs, it says "postings." You can say that it doesn't, but at least one court, and a court of appeals, disagrees.

So what's the case you're referring to here? I want to see someone convicted of trespassing for violating a no-guns sign, absent a request/demand to leave the premises before being arrested and charged with trespassing. You previously claimed that a no-guns sign was all that was needed (granted, lately your position on this seems to have changed with this particular thread).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Me too. The case cited is private property not open to public with only one sign, that says stay out, not a set of rules that need to be read. Seems completely different than privately owned property that is open to the public.

You're trying to move the goalposts Bun. The case cited makes does not acknowledgement one way, or the other, between private property, or private property that is sometimes open to the public.
The IC simply says:

Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 provides:

(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person’s agent;
* * *
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.
* * *
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You're trying to move the goalposts Bun. The case cited makes does not acknowledgement one way, or the other, between private property, or private property that is sometimes open to the public.
The IC simply says:

Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 provides:

(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person’s agent;
* * *
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.
* * *
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

Let us know when someone gets charged with criminal trespass at a mall for ignoring one of those signs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So....

Let's say I own a one entrance widget shop, that is typically open to the public; it is a private commercial business. At that entrance there is a posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

-the posting is one that follows code and denies persons carrying firearms with entry

Now, Let's say, you are A person who:
(1) does not having a contractual interest in the property, and you knowingly or intentionally enters the real property via the main entrance, open carrying a firearm.

Even though I have not said a word to you, have you committed criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.

Or have you not made any criminal action?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let us know when someone gets charged with criminal trespass at a mall for ignoring one of those signs.

Lol, I'll let you know as soon as you let me know when an officer is charged with a 4th Amendment violation for disarming a person during a traffic stop.

 

[jbombelli]

So....

Let's say I own a one entrance widget shop, that is typically open to the public; it is a private commercial business. At that entrance there is a posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

-the posting is one that follows code and denies persons carrying firearms with entry

Now, Let's say, you are A person who:
(1) does not having a contractual interest in the property, and you knowingly or intentionally enters the real property via the main entrance, open carrying a firearm.

Even though I have not said a word to you, have you committed criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.

Or have you not made any criminal action?

So let us know when someone gets arrested and charged with criminal trespass at a mall for ignoring one of those signs.

After all if this is how it's enforced there should be LOTS of examples you can give us.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So let us know when someone gets arrested and charged with criminal trespass at a mall for ignoring one of those signs.

So you are, are not, say that my scenario fit code? I won't hold my breath, I know how difficult it would be to make that admission, even though my parable uses the language of the code. I actually may fall down dead if you man up.

 

[jbombelli]

So you are, are not, say that my scenario fit code? I won't hold my breath, I know how difficult it would be to make that admission, even though my parable uses the language of the code. I actually may fall down dead if you man up.

Still waiting for that case law...

 

[Bunnykid68]

You're trying to move the goalposts Bun. The case cited makes does not acknowledgement one way, or the other, between private property, or private property that is sometimes open to the public.
The IC simply says:

Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 provides:

(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person’s agent;
* * *
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.
* * *
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;

Here is what goes with what you posted. Says they have to have been denied entry already

 

[Kutnupe14]

Still waiting for that case law...

... if you man up.

Didn't think so. But nonetheless, I'm happy you're back nipping on my heels without adding anything to the debate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;

Here is what goes with what you posted. Says they have to have been denied entry already

That denial comes from the posting.

 

[JetGirl]

So....

Let's say I own a one entrance widget shop, that is typically open to the public;

In keeping with the actual topic, this particular mall has multiple entrances (some directly into individual stores, some leading into the malls hallways). However, there is only one sign. The one at the main entrance which has wording that says "things not permitted; no guns" ...

 

[jbombelli]

Didn't think so. But nonetheless, I'm happy you're back nipping on my heels without adding anything to the debate.

Thats what I thought. Can't back up your claims. I'm not surprised though. You often can't back up your words.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In keeping with the actual topic, this particular mall has multiple entrances (some directly into individual stores, some leading into the malls hallways). However, there is only one sign. The one at the main entrance which has wording that says "things not permitted; no guns" ...

Which I would say, wouldn't apply. There would need to bean actual agent to convey that message then, since the sign is inadequate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thats what I thought. Can't back up your claims. I'm not surprised though. You often can't back up your words.

My heels, my heels!

 

[Bunnykid68]

That denial comes from the posting.

That's not what the statute says, says they need to have previously been denied