Friend refused exit at Chuck E Cheese

WalkingWolf said:

Unless there is a missing child report no business, or civil employee has any power to stop a lawful citizen leaving a business with HIS OWN family. That is ignorant, it is the parents responsibility alone for their child's safety. And it is about damn time they started being responsible. You can keep a person out of a business, there is nothing in the constitution that would condone incarceration of innocent law abiding citizens and their family. Detain me for some stupid carp and I guarantee a law suit. How could a kiddie joint be held culpable or negligent for something that is NOT their responsibility?

Click to expand...

Well if there was a signed waiver stating "children under age "X" will not be permitted to leave without the adult that brought them... then isn't that a binding contract? freedom of contract would rule then, the parent contracted Chuck E Cheese to ensure the child didn't get abducted with said security system then they have to abide by the contract.

There is not a court or DA in the country who will rule Chuck E Cheese is wrong in that policy....

EMNofSeattle said:

Well if there was a signed waiver stating "children under age "X" will not be permitted to leave without the adult that brought them... then isn't that a binding contract? freedom of contract would rule then, the parent contracted Chuck E Cheese to ensure the child didn't get abducted with said security system then they have to abide by the contract.

There is not a court or DA in the country who will rule Chuck E Cheese is wrong in that policy....

Click to expand...

Bovine Scatology, please provide cites? I have never heard of such a thing when going to restaurants including ones such as Chuck E Cheese. Please do not throw cow pies without backing it up. The moment any place of business has you sign a waiver THEY accept responsibility, and no business lawyer in their right mind would back such a thing, IMO. A government business such as a school can do that because they ARE responsible, and do have a certain amount of indemnity from law suits.

It is the PARENTS AND GUARDIANS RESPONSIBILITY for their children's safety, NOT a village. That is as ignorant as thinking the police are responsible for your safety.

EMNofSeattle said:

Well if there was a signed waiver stating "children under age "X" will not be permitted to leave without the adult that brought them... then isn't that a binding contract? freedom of contract would rule then, the parent contracted Chuck E Cheese to ensure the child didn't get abducted with said security system then they have to abide by the contract.

There is not a court or DA in the country who will rule Chuck E Cheese is wrong in that policy....

Click to expand...

A contract, entered into with the business by one parent (legal guardian) is not binding on the other parent (in the case of the OP). It is only binding on the two parties that entered into the "contract." The business is placed in the position of conforming to the language of the contract, possibly without the benefit of the other party's input if a unplanned "contract" modification is required.

The cops will have RAS because a business (Chuck E Cheese in this case) will very likely report a abducted child even if they know (little Amy ran to Daddy and yelled Daddy) that a parent (legal guardian) left their premises with that child. The business is enforcing their policy, not the law. The policy enforcement could place the business in civil legal peril, very easily based on the OP. And quite possibly the specific business employees could be in criminal legal peril based on the actions described in the OP.

The cops could be in trouble if they refuse to believe little Amy and her claim of "That is my daddy." After the cops detain daddy to sort things out, daddy must "lawyer up." The cops will always err on the side of caution regardless of the civil consequences for illogical and possibly unlawful proactive policing.

jphoenix said:

I am all for protection and exercising of our rights as parents and as Legal Citizens of the USA. That said, I have to agree with the above quoted statement. There are times when level headed thinking and diplomacy can go a long ways and prevent a scene.

Click to expand...

Preventing a "scene", interesting position. You seem to indicate that there is a point at which a scene may be required to defend your rights and liberty. At what point will you create a scene to defend your rights and your liberty?

Being a parent whose daughter had gone to the named place for a friend's b-day party I did the good old field trip permission slip routine. Had my name and my wife's name as authorized to pick up my child. The guardian if you will (hosting parent who had the same stamp as all the kids) presented the slip to the store manager.

When I went to pick my daughter up I went straight to the manager, showed my legal issued i.d., he confirmed with the hosting parent I was who I said I was. No problem, I was on my way with my daughter, no issues.

Click to expand...

Different situation from the OP, it seems, if a "permission slip" is required for the child to attend. Attendance is predicated on agreeing to the terms and conditions of the event and your compliance with the terms and conditions of the event is the correct course of action.

Was it right for the staff to act as they did? Don't know, was not there. Would I have called the police if I felt I was being treated or detained, sure thing.

Click to expand...

You do not know if the business was "right" in their actions, yet you would likely have called the police if you were confronted with a similar situation as described in the OP.

Bottom line, there are too many sickos out there that will try to snatch up our children. I believe the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child".

Click to expand...

No, it does not take a village, it takes parents of that child. The village can play a role when the "traditional family structure" is compromised and typically only if a parent requests assistance. But the village must never be proactive it must only be reactive, liberty demands it. However, if the child has no voice (advocate) other than the state (village) then the state must be proactive to the benefit of the child.

Since this is a OC forum, I equate it to a LEO asking for my i.d. and to run my weapon. "Sure thing officer, how do you want to continue, sir?" I would much rather be carrying on business as usual than detained and sitting in a cell for failure to follow orders or obstruction of a LEO just to prove a point.

I hope my comments have not offended anyone here and if so please accept my apology. I have been asked for my i.d. and the officer DID secure my sidearm and run the serial number. He handed it back, thanked me and even complimented me on my chosen weapon and defensive ammo of choice.

Click to expand...

Or, you could stand firm and defend your rights and correct the possibly unlawful behavior of your local LEA. You acted out of self interest, which is your right, but you did the other villagers in your village no favors by complying with possibly extralegal demands by LE. Other villagers in your village may wish to be free from extralegal interference from LE and you did not contribute to that goal by your compliance.

Have a good one everyone. Let's keep the OC people looked upon as responsible and polite in the eyes of the Sheeple.

Click to expand...

The sheeple will not unlawfully detain you, place you in a cell for "contempt of cop", LE will. Sheeple may initiate the contact with LE but only LE can toss you in the clink. Liberty demands that every citizen lawfully exercise their rights and compel the state to comply with the law. The sheeple have no such burden placed upon them. If a sheep violates the law (false report) and the result is that LE is complicit, unknowingly so, in that violation of the law (MWAG call) then it is every citizen's responsability to hold LE accountable for their unlawf acts.

Welcome to OCDO. I look forward to your contributions to this forum.

jphoenix said:

There are times when level headed thinking and diplomacy can go a long ways and prevent a scene.

Would I have called the police if I felt I was being treated or detained, sure thing.

Bottom line, there are too many sickoes out there that will try to snatch up our children. I believe the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child".


I have been asked for my i.d. and the officer DID secure my sidearm and run the serial number. He handed it back, thanked me and even complimented me on my chosen weapon and defensive ammo of choice.

.

Click to expand...

Diplomacy? Scene? Baaaaa baaaa. "call the police?" I have never called the police..they are not my helper...I can take care of things myself. And your village? Living in a dream world.

And giving a cop your sidearm? Ya know the 2nd amendment is here to enable you to protect yourself against that same very person .. yet here you go "OK, take my gun, I'm fine with that". Of course the cop complimented you ... you just tossed your 2nd amendment right into the toilet . Its does not mean much if the state can just come up and ask you for your gun, does it?

People are getting used to being detained for no lawful purpose. Now a 17 yr old kid with pimples has the authority to detain you.

You are free to allow people to hold you unlawfully; I myself will not. You want to help that 17yr old kid out? Then tell him NO ... best he learn this from you rather than me. I would not be to pleasant.

No civil contract can result in a detainment or kidnapping IMO.

Is there a real threat to the kids here? Has any child been abducted from a Chuck E. Cheese or similar establishment? If so, I'd think that they had a responsibility to ensure that the child is only picked up by a parent or some other authorized adult. The employee could TRY to enforce the policy, but could not legally detain the parent or the child. If the parent took the child and left and if the employee suspected (or even was concerned) that the child was being taken by someone other than the parent, he should call the police, provide whatever details he could, and let them handle the situation.

Store policies don't have the effect of law. However, they are surely necessary to protect us in this litigious age.

The stamps sound like a good way to handle the situation. The adult who brings the child and the child get the same stamp. When the child leaves, an employee checks the stamps. If they don't match, something is amiss. It may be as simple as one adult dropped the child off and another is picking him up. That should raise a concern by the staff, however they should only attempt to keep the child there while they resolve the matter. I don't see how they could possibly enforce a detention.

"Sir, this stamp system is in place to protect the children from being abducted by non-custodial adults. Not having such a system in place would also put us at legal risk. So let's try to figure this thing out before you leave. I cannot physically stop you from leaving, but will be forced to call the police and have them look into the matter if you do leave now. I hope you understand that we do this so that someone else cannot take your child from our store without us and the police immediately finding out that it has happened.

OK, now, can we start by figuring out why your stamps don't match?"

It's all in how you handle it. Are you trying to solve a problem, or are you trying to flex authority that you don't really have?

In a situation as described in the OP, I do not negotiate with private firms, my kid.

Just a note to add, there is no contract at Chuck E. Sneeze.....You are only told "Hold out your hand so we can stamp it." If pressed on why, they tell you it's to make sure you only leave with your child, and your child only leaves with you...that's all. And most of the employees (that I have come across there) don't even go that far. The bigger question, is why would I go to the place? At least at the one close to my home, they have a gun buster sign, meaning I am at their mercy should the worst happen.

And, since the location close to me usually doesn't have anyone at the kiosk thing to stamp the hands, or to check them, unless you stand there waiting for a few minutes, I'm just walking out, should I find myself in that position. (And, since they have been informed that you are leaving WITH YOUR CHILD, wouldn't/couldn't. shouldn't they get the hassle for filing a false report? Just asking.)

OC for ME said:

In a situation as described in the OP, I do not negotiate with private firms, my kid.

Click to expand...

If it were my kid, I would be glad to know that they were trying to make sure that no one else left with him, say a non-custodial parent trying to change the outcome of a custody hearing. I would work with them to establish that I was the parent. Failing that, I'd leave, not mind at all that they called the police, and go about my business, dealing with the police asking questions when I encountered them later. Of course, all along the way, I'd expect the employees and the police to act reasonably and not to commit crimes or violate my rights. A little hassle would be acceptable as long as the intent was to ensure that my child had not been abducted.

NO RAS in my opinion.

The employee has no authority to stop you.

The cops only suspicion is hearsay from a store employee, he has no RAS from my reading of Terry, that terrible watering down of 4th decision.

I find it interesting the retired Cop is way more liberty/freedom minded than the wanna be cop.

eye95 said:

A little hassle would be acceptable as long as the intent was to ensure that my child had not been abducted.

Click to expand...

It can seem reasonable eh? Its not. To many parents worry TOO MUCH. Lock the kids in a closet at home if they feel this way.

Does everybody live in the NYC projects? Even there, the mothers let their kids roam free.

When I was a kid, my mother booted me & my siblings out of the house telling us to come back for dinner.

I think kids ares more likely to be abducted by aliens ....

And once we give up our rights, our kids will not have them .. then we'll be crying when they get locked up for something that they never should have been locked up for and you'll say "how did we get to this point?" Then we can look in the mirror and figure it out.

davidmcbeth said:

...I think kids ares more likely to be abducted by aliens ....

And once we give up our rights, our kids will not have them...

Click to expand...

Still having trouble quoting posts and indicating that you have altered them? Is it that you can't learn, or won't learn?

No, kids are very likely to be abducted by non-custodial parents.

Taking a few moments to convince a pizza shop employee that the child is yours when their system broke down is no violation of your rights.

That an adult left the pizza place with a child, when the store could not establish he was the parent, would provide RAS for the police to question you. Again, no rights violation.

Again, I will voluntarily go along with a little hassle (I said nothing of rights violations) to help Chuck E. Cheese implement a policy to correctly match up children with the right adults. Again, it exists to make sure that your child leaves with you and not someone you don't want to have your child.

If you don't like the policy (I do), then don't patronize Chuck E. Cheese. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with "rights."

eye95 said:

If it were my kid, I would be glad to know that they were trying to make sure that no one else left with him, say a non-custodial parent trying to change the outcome of a custody hearing. I would work with them to establish that I was the parent. Failing that, I'd leave, not mind at all that they called the police, and go about my business, dealing with the police asking questions when I encountered them later. Of course, all along the way, I'd expect the employees and the police to act reasonably and not to commit crimes or violate my rights. A little hassle would be acceptable as long as the intent was to ensure that my child had not been abducted.

Click to expand...

That Chuck E Cheese employee would criminalize a violation Chuck E Cheese policy by a citizen not employeed by Chuck E Cheese. That is unacceptable!

The specific circumstances, legal or otherwise, regarding the parent/child relationship is not the in the purview of Chuck E Cheese. They have no legal authority to challenge the claim of the parent as described in the OP, regardless of their motivation or intentions. If that employee were to "call the police" to enforce their policy that employee deserves to have criminal charges filed against him and Chuck E Cheese would deserve a civil suit to be file against them. False claims of criminal acts must be dealt with as severely as the law allows.

We here on OCDO, I presume, do not condone the unlawful acts of some in LE to make criminal what is clearly not criminal, or to make criminal what is not known to be lawful without reasonable just cause. I certainly hope that this position would be applied to a private firm. RAS may be a low bar to hurdle for LE but a private firm does not even have that low bar to rely upon if/when they make false criminal accusations against a citizen.

I don't know exactly what the employee did. So I hesitate to classify it as criminal.

Had he requested that the adult stay while the matching problem was worked, and only called the police in response to an adult he did not KNOW should be taking the child from his custody taking that child, then he did ZERO wrong or criminal.

If he physically blocked the adult from leaving, then he is quite probably guilty of a crime.

Aaron1124 said:

<snip My friend was recently telling me a story of how the employee of Chuck E Cheese wouldn't allow him to leave with his son, because the stamp on his hand didn't match up on the stamp on his son's hand - because his son came in with his brother, and his brother already left.

He said he went to leave anyway, but they told him they would call the police on him if he left.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Either we believe this to be a true recounting of the event described or we do not believe it is a true recounting.

eye95 said:

I don't know exactly what the employee did. So I hesitate to classify it as criminal.

Had he requested that the adult stay while the matching problem was worked, and only called the police in response to an adult he did not KNOW should be taking the child from his custody taking that child, then he did ZERO wrong or criminal.

If he physically blocked the adult from leaving, then he is quite probably guilty of a crime.

Click to expand...

The OP clearly states what the employee is claimed to have done and what the employee would have done.

Now, do we believe or do we not believe. I choose to believe the recounting of the event, until it is shown that the recounting of the event was a fabrication. The employee threatened the citizen, effectively making a Chuck E Cheese policy violation a criminal act, a severe criminal act to be sure. Using LE to enforce a private firm's policy, I reiterate, is unacceptable!! A false report of criminal acts to LE, in Missouri, is a criminal act.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000080.HTM

What we do not know is what the decision of the father was after being informed that the cops would be called if he left the premises with his son.

WalkingWolf said:

Unless there is a missing child report no business, or civil employee has any power to stop a lawful citizen leaving a business with HIS OWN family. That is ignorant, it is the parents responsibility alone for their child's safety. And it is about damn time they started being responsible. You can keep a person out of a business, there is nothing in the constitution that would condone incarceration of innocent law abiding citizens and their family. Detain me for some stupid carp and I guarantee a law suit. How could a kiddie joint be held culpable or negligent for something that is NOT their responsibility?

Click to expand...

Did I say anything about a store employee "imprisoning" you?? NO! But if said employee dials 911 and tells dispatch "A male (description) just left our store with a child that did not match our security verification system and left in a (car description) headed (direction)" do want to bet you won't be seeing reds & blues behind you shortly????

Also did I miss the part of you post where you said you wouldn't sue if the joint allowed your child to be abducted from their operation??? Can't find it but I do recall such a law suit being won about 10 years ago, can't find a reference to it now.

F350 said:

Did I say anything about a store employee "imprisoning" you?? NO! But if said employee dials 911 and tells dispatch "A male (description) just left our store with a child that did not match our security verification system and left in a (car description) headed (direction)" do want to bet you won't be seeing reds & blues behind you shortly????

Also did I miss the part of you post where you said you wouldn't sue if the joint allowed your child to be abducted from their operation??? Can't find it but I do recall such a law suit being won about 10 years ago, can't find a reference to it now.

Click to expand...

Sue HOW? Please cite case law or laws where such suits have taken place? How would a business be responsible for the parents or guardians responsibility? Please I am really interested to hear of such cases?

And unless there was a missing child reported by the parents or guardians I would hope the police would have enough brains not to harassing citizens on some power trip by a punk kid at restaurant. Again though if you have some cases to back it up, please share?

WalkingWolf said:

Sue HOW? Please cite case law or laws where such suits have taken place? How would a business be responsible for the parents or guardians responsibility? Please I am really interested to hear of such cases?

And unless there was a missing child reported by the parents or guardians I would hope the police would have enough brains not to harassing citizens on some power trip by a punk kid at restaurant. Again though if you have some cases to back it up, please share?

Click to expand...

In case you didn't know, RAS is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" they don't have to score a conviction at the Chuck E Cheese, simply need enough to investigate. of course the kid would not be reported missing if chester the molester took the kid away hours before the real parent planned too.

there is cerainly RAS to investigate, a normal parent wouldn't be refusing to cooperate with a reasonable system to ensure safety of their children.

Is there any time in which someone can stand up for a child's safety in your mind? I guess you're all for the child's right to get abductor and raped by some pervert and tossed in a river....

no constitutional violation in a private entity enacting such a system, no crime in reporting to the police, it's only a crime to make a false report if you intentionally tell police a lie, telling the dispatcher the person MAY be attempting to abduct a child and giving the dispatch information on the car is not making a false statement.

And I'm certain that will constitute RAS to investigate, and probably bring you a felony traffic stop, if they haven't already got a search warrant for the house that the car is registered.

EMNofSeattle said:

In case you didn't know, RAS is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" they don't have to score a conviction at the Chuck E Cheese, simply need enough to investigate. of course the kid would not be reported missing if chester the molester took the kid away hours before the real parent planned too.

there is cerainly RAS to investigate, a normal parent wouldn't be refusing to cooperate with a reasonable system to ensure safety of their children.

Is there any time in which someone can stand up for a child's safety in your mind? I guess you're all for the child's right to get abductor and raped by some pervert and tossed in a river....

no constitutional violation in a private entity enacting such a system, no crime in reporting to the police, it's only a crime to make a false report if you intentionally tell police a lie, telling the dispatcher the person MAY be attempting to abduct a child and giving the dispatch information on the car is not making a false statement.

And I'm certain that will constitute RAS to investigate, and probably bring you a felony traffic stop, if they haven't already got a search warrant for the house that the car is registered.

Click to expand...

Cases? Cites? Laws? something other than warm and fuzzy, cause last time I checked warm and fuzzy does not equal RAS. Keep in mind in this case of the OP there is no abduction. What in the hot place after life are you basing a felony stop for a man with his own child, and the child is not under duress?

Honestly some of you watch entirely too much crime tv...

WalkingWolf said:

Cases? Cites? Laws? something other than warm and fuzzy, cause last time I checked warm and fuzzy does not equal RAS. Keep in mind in this case of the OP there is no abduction. What in the hot place after life are you basing a felony stop for a man with his own child, and the child is not under duress?

Honestly some of you watch entirely too much crime tv...

Click to expand...

There was in fact no abduction, but there's no way to know that if the parent is sudden valley gunner's political twin and going "this is my kid, I don't need to prove it to you" well by using Chuck E cheese you agreed to their stamp system. I've been to several childrens play places in which they had a similar system and it was spelled out in contract that I had to sign to have my younger brother able to use said facility. doesn't need to be a written agreement though, it can be implied contract too by the responsible adult getting stamped.

The signed report of the manager stating he believes there may be a child abduction in progress will more then suffice, someone just reported a crime in progress. Once the cops verify you're a parent or guardian you'll be free to leave. a named report suffices as RAS. There is no law saying a reporting citizen has to be right about the activity they report, only that they reasonably believed said crime was occuring. I'm almost certain in my county a judge would approve a search warrant for the address that the vehicle is registered to as well if the last names of the child and adult do not match.

F350 said:

OK; I'm one of the most hard nosed RAS guys here, but I give all those "they can't stop me from leaving with my kid, LEO have no RAS to stop me....." types 5 to 1 odds on 2 bets

1} There isn't a court in the country that would not find that a guy leaving a "kiddie joint" with a kid that doesn't match the security stamp system wasn't RAS.

2} If said "kiddie joint" allowed some stranger to leave with their kid they would be the first and loudest yelling "LAW SUIT!!!!!

Click to expand...

What gives them the right to place any type of tracking/identification device on you or your children? Do we get "marked" when we walk in Walmart or Lowe's? No. Why any business would do such a thing is beyond me. I don't believe RAS could be established simply because a stamp on my hand didn't match my child's that were placed on us by a private party. If I am walking out and my child is not causing a scene and yelling, "This isn't my daddy!" or something to that effect, then they have no reason to stop or detain me. If they have reason to believe a felony is happening right in front of them then they could execute a "citizen's arrest," but only if they had no doubt that a felony was in progress.

This policy is ignorant because no court would hold a private company responsible for the abduction of your child. It is the parent's responsibility to maintain a visual awareness of their children at all times, not the private establishment they are visiting. Just because they place hand-stamps on everyone still wouldn't change the fact. All they would have to say is that the parent or supposed parent demanded to leave and they could not stop them.