STOPPED by MALL security guard @ Circle Centre Mall for OC

[CX1]

For supporting a charge of trespassing in the moment, you are right, but the criminal trespass statute does make provision for preemptory charges of criminal trespassing, if the property owner/proprietor or their agent places a notice on the main entrance in a place likely to come to the notice of the public, then they don't have to confront you for you to already be guilty of criminal trespass.

I agree (though many here seem not to agree).
I am not willing to be the test case on it. So I will comply with the signage.

 

[mrjarrell]

Please excuse my ignorance, but whats a ND?

Thanks
Dave

Negligent Discharge. As opposed to an Accidental Discharge.

 

[Rookie]

He walks the line. Until he crosses it there's little that will be done. No forum rule against being a disagreeable butthead.

If every post related to carry serves no purpose but to stir the pot, then he is not walking the line.

 

[Josh Ward]

Still waiting on an answer to the "who is 'WE" question ....

 

[Roadie]

Still waiting on an answer to the "who is 'WE" question ....

Don't hold your breath. Jake is notorious for posting something controversial, borderline insulting, etc, then never coming back to debate/discuss.

 

[atvdave]

Negligent Discharge. As opposed to an Accidental Discharge.

Thanks... I don't remember hearing about that..

Also I do believe just last year there was a woman abducted in the parking lot at the same mall. Would have been nice if she was allowed to have a firearm on her side..

 

[Rookie]

Considering it's been asked several times, I doubt you're going to get an answer.

 

[mrjarrell]

If every post related to carry serves no purpose but to stir the pot, then he is not walking the line.

He's still here, so the mods obviously don't see it. He'll cross it eventually. He's too buttheaded not to.

 

[Roadie]

<snip>

@ Roadie:
That falls to the "reasonable person" standard.

How so?

1. Signs hold no weight of law in Indiana.
2. It is not illegal to carry in a store.
3. Carrying a gun in a store with a sign is not "trespass" until one is asked to leave, and does not.
4. Chuck E Cheese worded their signs very specifically BECAUSE of the above..
5. Even so. It is doubtful that someone seen carrying a gun in a Chuck E Cheese would be arrested for trespass, if they had:

A: Not been asked to leave, but rather
B: Refused to leave after being asked

..because of #1

Can you cite examples to the contrary?

 

[Rookie]

He's still here, so the mods obviously don't see it. He'll cross it eventually. He's too buttheaded not to.

I try to point out what's going on, and the reply was "use the report button". The problem is that you look at one post and it seems like it's not that big of a deal. Start paying attention to his posts and it becomes pretty obvious that he's not doing anything but trolling.

The mods can't see it themselves? Or do they choose not to?

 

[CPT Nervous]

I reported him as well.

 

[mrjarrell]

I try to point out what's going on, and the reply was "use the report button". The problem is that you look at one post and it seems like it's not that big of a deal. Start paying attention to his posts and it becomes pretty obvious that he's not doing anything but trolling.

The mods can't see it themselves? Or do they choose not to?

Oh, I've seen it. Happens in almost every kind of thread he inserts himself into. He's just not crossed the line, as far as the mods are concerned. Can't stand the little troll, myself. But, until he crosses the magic line, to the satisfaction of the mods, there's not a lot you can do.

 

[Scutter01]

We don't want civilians doing so.

Police are civilians.

 

[Roadie]

Oh, I've seen it. Happens in almost every kind of thread he inserts himself into. He's just not crossed the line, as far as the mods are concerned. Can't stand the little troll, myself. But, until he crosses the magic line, to the satisfaction of the mods, there's not a lot you can do.

Exactly..

I try to point out what's going on, and the reply was "use the report button". The problem is that you look at one post and it seems like it's not that big of a deal. Start paying attention to his posts and it becomes pretty obvious that he's not doing anything but trolling.

The mods can't see it themselves? Or do they choose not to?

He knows the line very well, and I doubt he will ever cross it. I am sure the Mods are aware of his antics, but also know he doesn't "technically" cross that line, so in fairness, they cannot act.

That is my opinion at least..

 

[Scutter01]

Oh, I've seen it. Happens in almost every kind of thread he inserts himself into. He's just not crossed the line, as far as the mods are concerned. Can't stand the little troll, myself. But, until he crosses the magic line, to the satisfaction of the mods, there's not a lot you can do.

Define "trolling" and then maybe you can make a case. Jake is anti-OC, and banning him for stating that opinion would be an incorrect action. Unless you want the mods to go around banning people just for unpopular opinions?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Police are civilians.

Oh so many people simply do not, cannot, and will not voluntarily understand this simple fact. That goes for police and non-police/non-military citizens alike.

 

[Rookie]

That's what I don't understand. I went and looked up the forum rules. Trolling and inflammatory posts are SUPPOSEDLY not allowed. Do a quick search of his posts and you find that he habitually makes inflammatory posts for no reason but to stir the pot and then he moves on to the next thread.

 

[Scutter01]

Oh so many people simply do not, cannot, and will not voluntarily understand this simple fact. That goes for police and non-police/non-military citizens alike.

It scares the hell out of me when a police officer doesn't seem to understand that.

 

[Scutter01]

That's what I don't understand. I went and looked up the forum rules. Trolling and inflammatory posts are SUPPOSEDLY not allowed. Do a quick search of his posts and you find that he habitually makes inflammatory posts for no reason but to stir the pot and then he moves on to the next thread.

Again, define trolling. It's not as black-and-white as you'd like to think. The staff takes enough crap from people when they ban someone for a blatantly-obvious reason as it is. For something like trolling, which can be easily claimed as "simply stating my opinion", that they have to have a pretty iron-clad reason for when the inevitable *****ing about "inconsistency", "unfairness", "cliques", and "anti-1st Amendment" starts. While it may look like trolling to you, you're not the one that's going to have to answer a couple of hundred angry and belligerent PM's.

 

[Rookie]

Define "trolling" and then maybe you can make a case. Jake is anti-OC, and banning him for stating that opinion would be an incorrect action. Unless you want the mods to go around banning people just for unpopular opinions?

Easy. I'll give two examples.

Jake - jumps in a thread spotting useless nonsense with the sole purpose of being a troll.

J706 - has similar views as Jake but he's willing to try to explain his opinion.

Jake = troll
J706 = person with an unpopular opinion.